Latest figure on public v private pay released by CSO

Japer

Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.7% annually compared

with a rise of 1.9% in the public sector.
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/earnlabcosts.pdf

The wage gap between the well paid and pensioned public sector, and the much poorer paid, and less secure private sector, widens further.
Time for the lifeboats.

Cookie_Monster

average of €10 an hour more for the PS :eek:

Welease

In fairness the data doesn't include the "pension" cuts..

kelle

Where, where???? I don't see it on my wageslip.....

ei.sdraob

Welease wrote: »

In fairness the data doesn't include the "pension" cuts..

FFS

pension is not an income!


if you want to count is as "income" then start paying tax on it (41% rate in most cases in PS)

WalterMitty

Not suprised. Out of all the people i know in private and public sector, the public sector are generally much better paid while working less hard and being less educated. This is from a large circle of people in 20s and 30s i know who are accountants,teachers, gardai, civil servants, engineers, computer grads etc.
These pay comparisions dont even allow for the much extra renumeration the public sector get in terms of jobs security and DB pensions.

Welease

ei.sdraob wrote: »

FFS

pension is not an income!


if you want to count is as "income" then start paying tax on it (41% rate in most cases in PS)

I am well aware of that pension's are not income.. But payments taken from your salary do in reality lessen the direct "income" that people measure. The CSO survey is pre-levy, which has impacted their actual "income"

(their.. not mine.. I am private sector, I disagree with the terms of the PS pension, and you can check any previous PS pension thread on here and see my position quiet clearly, but there is little point in having discussion if people want to ignore actual facts).

Looks like I am not the only one who considers it somewhat important.. The report you are discussing actually calls it out..

"Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.7% annually compared
with a rise of 1.9% in the public sector. Earnings in the latter are,
however calculated before deduction of the pension levy that was introduced
in March 2009." CSO http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/earnlabcosts.pdf

"In the private sector, the drop was 2.7% to €607.15. In the public sector, earnings rose 1.9% to €948.16, but this did not take the public sector pension levy into account. The levy was brought in in March 22009." http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0422/cso.html

Maybe you could try being a bit more balanced....

ei.sdraob

Welease wrote: »

I am well aware of that pension's are not income.. But payments taken from your salary do in reality lessen the direct "income" that people measure. The CSO survey is pre-levy, which has impacted their actual "income"

(their.. not mine.. I am private sector, I disagree with the terms of the PS pension, and you can check any previous PS pension thread on here and see my position quiet clearly, but there is little point in having discussion if people want to ignore actual facts).

I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong

oh and the facts are linked to in OPs post, do look at them

Welease

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong

oh and the facts are linked to in OPs post, do look at them

/sigh...

a pension is not income.. a levy for said pension does detract from your income..

The report the OP linked.. and the facts that the OP linked to also state this fact..

"Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.7% annually compared
with a rise of 1.9% in the public sector. Earnings in the latter are,
however calculated before deduction of the pension levy that was introduced in March 2009."

Did you bother to read it?

ParkRunner

Effectively public sector workers could be paying 50% of their pay into a pension but it still wouldn't show up on any cso stats and it will be this time next year before the stats show that public sector workers have taken any sort of a cut

Traumadoc

As a matter of interest are commercial semistate considered public or private?

danbohan

Japer wrote: »

Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.7% annually compared

with a rise of 1.9% in the public sector.
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/earnlabcosts.pdf

The wage gap between the well paid and pensioned public sector, and the much poorer paid, and less secure private sector, widens further.
Time for the lifeboats.

the sooner the imf come in here and sort this bull....... out the better , its a nuts county,
ran by ps for ps , paid for by serfs

Taxipete29

ei.sdraob wrote: »

FFS

pension is not an income!


if you want to count is as "income" then start paying tax on it (41% rate in most cases in PS)

Its been stated time and time again on this forum that there are workers paying the levy who are not now or never will be enititled to a PS pension.

Lets call it for what it was, a pay cut.

Galmay

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong

oh and the facts are linked to in OPs post, do look at them

Well if you want to be technical about it, the so called 'pension levy' is not actually about pensions whatsoever.

It is offically called 'the emergency measures in the public finances bill levy' not 'pension levy', despite it being a much catchier title! The legislation explicitly states that the levy is does not in any way contribute to an employees pension and all the money goes back into the general government coffers. Furthermore, the levy applies to all earnings regardless of whether such income is reckonable for pension purposes. In reality, the levy is a levy on working in the public sector, not a levy to pay for pension entitlements.

I know some posters will retort that the ps should be paying for these pensions anyway, and they are to an extent, but not through the unfortunately named 'pension levy'. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to wish to include 'levy' reductions in the above quoted figures.

But of course this also gives Brian Lenihan the opportunity to introduce an actual pension levy next december if he so wishes...

ParkRunner

Galmay wrote: »

But of course this also gives Brian Lenihan the opportunity to introduce an actual pension levy next december if he so wishes...

Not if Croke Park is approved by union members

BeardyFunzo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong

oh and the facts are linked to in OPs post, do look at them

Brian Lenihan himself on the RTE news called the pension levy a pay cut. The pension levy has nothing to do with any pension. it is a pay cut.

Scarab80

In response to the back and forth arguments that go on here between posters regarding cuts that have been taken by the public service i went and did some quick calculations.

Figures include increment grant of 4% which seems to be the average, higher if you are lower on the scale, lower if you are further up.

No account has been taken of employees at the end of their increment scale, however to balance no account has been taken of the fact that in the 14 months since Feb 09 two increment payments will have been paid to some employees.



Also should be noted that the present value of future pension funding requirements have not been included.

ardmacha

I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong.

Of course pensions are income, are you refusing to talk to people in the real world.

the sooner the imf come in here and sort this bull.......

Do you mean the bull on this Board?

This thread is typical of the anti PS bias of posters here and many people here seem to carry on as if the cuts had not taken place. The data specifically excludes the effect of the pay cut in the Emergency measures in the public finances Bill, so PS pay in fact declined by 5%, twice the decline in the private sector. Then you have red herrings like increments brought into the mix, increments are a form of slow motion promotion and are not relevant to this discussion.

Scarab80

ardmacha wrote: »

Then you have red herrings like increments brought into the mix, increments are a form of slow motion promotion and are not relevant to this discussion.

Moving up a grade is a promotion, increments are non performance related pay rises for doing the same job.

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

This thread is typical of the anti PS bias of posters here and many people here seem to carry on as if the cuts had not taken place. The data specifically excludes the effect of the pay cut in the Emergency measures in the public finances Bill, so PS pay in fact declined by 5%, twice the decline in the private sector. Then you have red herrings like increments brought into the mix, increments are a form of slow motion promotion and are not relevant to this discussion.

In fairness (we have to look at both sides), you cannot ignore increments.. they are an increase in income (as are bonus's etc.). The 5% Levy is not twice the PrS cut, when you start from a positive position, it brings to cuts down to a similar/greater level, not twice the level.

All the CSO data shows, is that the PS were slightly slower in reacting to the downturn that the PrS.

Edit - And it does need stating for the board warriors on both sides.. a bigger decrease on either side does not necessarily mean you are hard done by.. If you are overpaid by 20% and receive a 10% decrease and the other sector has a 5% decrease (made up example), you are still overpaid in comparison.. irrespective.

ardmacha

n fairness (we have to look at both sides), you cannot ignore increments.. they are an increase in income (as are bonus's etc.).

People get promoted, move to better positions etc in the private sector too. The data includes all of this.

The 5% Levy is not twice the PrS cut, when you start from a positive position, it brings to cuts down to a similar/greater level, not twice the level.

The Levy is 7% or 7.5% on average, so the PS cuts are indeed twice the level +2-7 = -5%.

All the CSO data shows is that the Private sector were much slower in reacting to the downturn than the Public Sector.

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

People get promoted, move to better positions etc in the private sector too. The data includes all of this.

It does... but you want to ignore increments.. is that fair?

ardmacha

Increments are not relevant to the question of paycuts. It is necessary to ignore them for clarity in the discussion. Increments may have relevance to an individuals finances but we are discussing the aggregate here.

johnnyskeleton

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong

Pensions are income surely?

Scarab80

ardmacha wrote: »

The Levy is 7% or 7.5% on average, so the PS cuts are indeed twice the level +2-7 = -5%.

All the CSO data shows is that the Private sector were much slower in reacting to the downturn than the Public Sector.

The levy is about 6% on average, a 7.5% average would mean that the average wage in the public sector was €80,000 and this would be silly of course, the average wage is a much more reasonable €50,000.

Of course the elephant in the room here is the hundreds of thousands who have lost their jobs in the private sector. This has the double effect of increasing the average wage through the inclusion of redundancy payments and the complete removal of people from the payroll so that others can maintain their wage levels.

Scarab80

ardmacha wrote: »

Increments are not relevant to the question of paycuts. It is necessary to ignore them for clarity in the discussion. Increments may have relevance to an individuals finances but we are discussing the aggregate here.

There is absolutely no logic in this statement, are you saying that increments are somehow omitted from the aggregate public sector pay figure? Increments are more relevant now than ever, they are pay rises for lasting a year in a job from which you can't get sacked!

ei.sdraob

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Pensions are income surely?

if its 'income' fancy paying income tax on it? Was my point

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

Increments are not relevant to the question of paycuts. It is necessary to ignore them for clarity in the discussion. Increments may have relevance to an individuals finances but we are discussing the aggregate here.

True, but the thread and the CSO survey is not about paycuts, it's about the changes in income. Paycuts (negative) and Increments (postive) directly effect income, so they are relevant and are included in the CSO report which we are discussing (and they specificaly note the non inclusion of the "pension" levy)

Welease

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if its 'income' fancy paying income tax on it? Was my point

No offense, but your point was about somethign that nobody had actually said.. My point which you responded to, was that everyone needed to understand that the PS had taken paycuts subsequent to the CSO survey (which is up to Q3 2009) and therefore should not be used to paint an innacurate picture.. The CSO themselves made note of this of Page 1, so obviously found it important.

You decided to ignore this.

(i have no wish to continue an arguement with you, I actually enjoy and agree with the bulk of your posts.. but you seem intent on ignoring any pertinent information in this particular thread, and in fact responded in a somewhat agressive fashion to a simple note...)

Head The Wall

CSO stats are based on the gross earnings i.e before PAYE, levies etc

Lots of people in the private sector also pay towards their pension. It is a deduction same as the pension levy. Bloody public sector always think they're special and should be treated differently.

It's like this - your employer runs their pension fund differently. get over it

ei.sdraob

@welease I'm not ignoring you.sorry I'm on phone so hard to type
Anyways I read the bit on gray on cso report. Yes these are before levies but people in private sector also have levies added on and pensions almost fully wiped out

I have a huge objection to pensions being called 'income'

Head The Wall

Somebody would want to teach Peter McLoone about statistics. I'm sure the next set of stats will be showing a further deterioration of private sector pay also. More importantly for the PS the Private sector tax returns will be down i.e money to pay their wages.

Trade union IMPACT has said the figures on public and private pay levels released today by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) did not give a full picture of the deterioration of public sector pay in 2009.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/impact-cso-pay-figures-do-not-show-hit-to-public-workers-pay-454907.html

ParkRunner

Head The Wall wrote: »

Somebody would want to teach Peter McLoone about statistics. I'm sure the next set of stats will be showing a further deterioration of private sector pay also. More importantly for the PS the Private sector tax returns will be down i.e money to pay the ever increasing social welfare and bank bailout bill rather than the ever decreasing public sector pay and pensions bill.

Fixed

Welease

Head The Wall wrote: »

CSO stats are based on the gross earnings i.e before PAYE, levies etc

Lots of people in the private sector also pay towards their pension. It is a deduction same as the pension levy. Bloody public sector always think they're special and should be treated differently.

It's like this - your employer runs their pension fund differently. get over it

If your point is aimed at me, then i doubt you have an idea how my pension is funded.. I have been private sector for 25+ years, and never worked in a day in the PS

However that aside , it does bring up an interesting point.. and you are indeed correct I rechecked the report and it does point out that earning are indeed pre prsi, levies..

"Earnings figures are gross amounts before deductions for PRSI, tax and other levies such as the pension levy. In addition to underlying trends in pay rates and working patterns, changes in average earnings and paid hours are influenced by changes in the composition of the workforce."

So why do the CSO make a point of mentioning the non inclusion of the Pension levy (post Q3 2009) if it couldnt be included anyway.

"Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.7% annually compared
with a rise of 1.9% in the public sector. Earnings in the latter are,
however calculated before deduction of the pension levy that was introduced in March 2009."

Is it just late and I am tired... or should i be readjusting my tinfoil hat?

doc_17

It's a pity that these reports can't keep up with the times and are already 12 months out of date before they are printed.

I saw someone mention increments earlier. I'd b surprised if incrments weren't frozen in the budget this year. AFAIK this wouldn't violate the Croke Park agreement.

Head The Wall

EF wrote: »

Fixed

I get your point but welfare bill will be coming down along with most other expenditure, no doubt about that. What part of govt expenditure is hollering most about being exempt from what's happening in the country? Hint - No reform & no paycuts

Welease wrote: »

So why do the CSO make a point of mentioning the non inclusion of the Pension levy (post Q3 2009) if it couldnt be included anyway.

"Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.7% annually compared
with a rise of 1.9% in the public sector. Earnings in the latter are,
however calculated before deduction of the pension levy that was introduced in March 2009."

Is it just late and I am tired... or should i be readjusting my tinfoil hat?

You do realise who the CSO's employer is!!:D

It's in there because again they think they are special and different to everyone else

tubsy78

Well folks it looks like the public sector with their safe jobs and guarenteed incomes will infact bankrupt this country they really need to wake up!!!!Lets not forget its these gob****es that helped make all these crazy decisions like planning,half arsed legislation,ran the regulatory bodies etc,etc,etc.We only get 20 days holidays in the private sector some of these idiots get upwards of 60 on average and can carry them forward each year and to finish my rant spend some of that time is spent over the boarder filling up Mr Darlings coffers in the UK.... teachers beware I will egg you if you man pickots this time .....speaking of which no teachers in my area stood outside the school gates on their last strike.....anyone else find them a tad childish by the way????

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... I have a huge objection to pensions being called 'income'

So I have noticed. But I don't understand why.

So far as both I and the Revenue Commissioners are concerned, my pension is an income.

Nijmegen

A big issue with the average hourly pay is, it's for the people who still have jobs. The swinging cuts in the private sector have not fallen equally, and always when there are mass layoffs there are more average earners than managers losing their jobs. I would wonder if it would be possible to show adjusted figured to show the real position for the total pay bill.

Much as I do believe that the numbers are skewed on both sides - private and public sector, where commentators do conveniently forget to mention the drop in real take home pay that many have taken - I would say that on balance, the private sector has taken the lions share of the hit in this recession. You can't argue with the dole queues, and not many people on them come from the public sector - all, mainly, contract workers who were there for a fixed term, not permanent positions made redundant.

Incriments in the public sector need to be frozen. In the long run, it'll mean less cuts for everybody later if people stop taking pay increases today. It's nuts that people continue to get pay increases on a scheduled basis in the middle of all of this.

doc_17

tubsy78 wrote: »

Well folks it looks like the public sector with their safe jobs and guarenteed incomes will infact bankrupt this country they really need to wake up!!!!Lets not forget its these gob****es that helped make all these crazy decisions like planning,half arsed legislation,ran the regulatory bodies etc,etc,etc.We only get 20 days holidays in the private sector some of these idiots get upwards of 60 on average and can carry them forward each year and to finish my rant spend some of that time is spent over the boarder filling up Mr Darlings coffers in the UK.... teachers beware I will egg you if you man pickots this time .....speaking of which no teachers in my area stood outside the school gates on their last strike.....anyone else find them a tad childish by the way????

really don't know where to start on that. Lots of anger there so I think I'll just agree with you. It's all the public sectors fault. Shoot them all before they retreat to their pads in massachusetts! It's all the fault of the CPSU clerk on 26K a year! Nothing to do with builders and bankers at all.
let it all out my friend. You'll feel much better:D

BeardyFunzo

Head The Wall wrote: »

CSO stats are based on the gross earnings i.e before PAYE, levies etc

Lots of people in the private sector also pay towards their pension. It is a deduction same as the pension levy. Bloody public sector always think they're special and should be treated differently.

It's like this - your employer runs their pension fund differently. get over it

The pension levy has nothing to do with pensions... it's a pay cut! if it had something to do with pensions then people who don't have a public service pension wouldn't have to pay it- but they do!

Scarab80

BeardyFunzo wrote: »

The pension levy has nothing to do with pensions... it's a pay cut! if it had something to do with pensions then people who don't have a public service pension wouldn't have to pay it- but they do!

It's certainly taxed like a pension contribution.

BeardyFunzo

tubsy78 wrote: »

Well folks it looks like the public sector with their safe jobs and guarenteed incomes will infact bankrupt this country they really need to wake up!!!!Lets not forget its these gob****es that helped make all these crazy decisions like planning,half arsed legislation,ran the regulatory bodies etc,etc,etc.We only get 20 days holidays in the private sector some of these idiots get upwards of 60 on average and can carry them forward each year and to finish my rant spend some of that time is spent over the boarder filling up Mr Darlings coffers in the UK.... teachers beware I will egg you if you man pickots this time .....speaking of which no teachers in my area stood outside the school gates on their last strike.....anyone else find them a tad childish by the way????

Text book pile'o'crap anti-PS rant. Everyone here should just cut and paste this into every discussion on the economy from now on because this is how most of the discussions around here go.

BeardyFunzo

Scarab80 wrote: »

It's certainly taxed like a pension contribution.

It's taxed like a pay cut... not at all.

Seriously... is that your basis for an argument that it's actually a pension contribution? What about that trillion quid you didn't earn last year? you didn't pay tax on it? It must have gone into your pension!

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So I have noticed. But I don't understand why.

So far as both I and the Revenue Commissioners are concerned, my pension is an income.

Do you pay 20 or 41% income tax on your pension 'income'?

if you want to call it "income" then fine whatever, do you want to pay "income" level taxes on it then...

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Do you pay 20 or 41% income tax on your put pension 'income'?

Yes, of course I pay income tax on my pension. And PRSI. And Income Levy. That's what I meant when I said that the Revenue Commissioners regard my pension as an income.

BeardyFunzo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Do you pay 20 or 41% income tax on your put pension 'income'?

if you want to call it "income" then fine whatever, do you want to pay "income" level taxes on it then...

According to this he does pay tax on it.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/money-and-tax/personal-finance/pensions/taxation_of_pensions

I really don't understand what your point is.

ei.sdraob

BeardyFunzo wrote: »

According to this he does pay tax on it.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/money-and-tax/personal-finance/pensions/taxation_of_pensions

I really don't understand what your point is.

im talking about money going towards the pension (before you reach the pension age, whenever that is) as per the thread subject

not money coming from the pension itself once you reach the age

BeardyFunzo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im talking about money going towards the pension (before you reach the pension age, whenever that is) as per the thread subject

not money coming from the pension itself once you reach the age

You don't have to pay income tax on money you pay toward a pension either.

ei.sdraob

BeardyFunzo wrote: »

You don't have to pay income tax on money you pay toward a pension either.

exactly

if they want to call it 'income' then at that point do they fancy paying 'income' level taxes for it (once again im talking about people currently in employment, not already retired like @P. B above)

BeardyFunzo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

exactly

if they want to call it 'income' then at that point do they fancy paying 'income' level taxes for it (once again im talking about people currently in employment, not already retired like @P. B above)

*wishes there was in icon for a head exploding*

Who gets a pension whilst in active service? what are you on about?

1. Pension contributions are tax free for all.... ALL !
2. income from a pension is taxed.

what is the problem?