Croke park deal has had some success???

dean21

If the croke park deal was not out there would the bank of Ireland have backed down on its chief pension deal and would our EU commissioners have given up her pension???
When both of these were in the media they keep referring to the coke park deal and getting it passed.
I think if there was no croke park deal then neither would have happened, and I now believe that all ex ministers will have to give up there pensions.
I also believe that this will lead to “Either you work or you are on a pension" right across the workforce.

MaceFace

dean21 wrote: »

If the croke park deal was not out there would the bank of Ireland have backed down on its chief pension deal and would our EU commissioners have given up her pension???
When both of these were in the media they keep referring to the coke park deal and getting it passed.
I think if there was no croke park deal then neither would have happened, and I now believe that all ex ministers will have to give up there pensions.
I also believe that this will lead to “Either you work or you are on a pension" right across the workforce.

Well, I disagree, the Croke Park deal had nothing to do with it as the media would have found some other reasoning to justify these payments from happening.

Besides that, it is a red herring. Last week Boucher, this week Geoghegan-Quinn and Stagg.
Seriously, big deal - this saves the State about €150k in two weeks. Only another €3999850k in the next 34 weeks.

It goes to show that either:
1. The citizens are stupid
2. Those in power are going a very good job creating these stories to hide the real stories that matter.

PeakOutput

dean21 wrote: »

If the croke park deal was not out there would the bank of Ireland have backed down on its chief pension deal and would our EU commissioners have given up her pension???
When both of these were in the media they keep referring to the coke park deal and getting it passed.
I think if there was no croke park deal then neither would have happened, and I now believe that all ex ministers will have to give up there pensions.
I also believe that this will lead to “Either you work or you are on a pension" right across the workforce.

they shouldnt have to give up anything tbh and its just begrudgery demanding they do the terms were overly generous thats not their fault and there is nothing wrong with being on a 'pension' while you are still working

the croke park deal ahs had success but this is not one of the success's

Paulzx

PeakOutput wrote: »

they shouldnt have to give up anything tbh and its just begrudgery

The irony of your statement is unbelievable when you relate it to every discussion here on public service pay

PeakOutput

Paulzx wrote: »

The irony of your statement is unbelievable when you relate it to every discussion here on public service pay

ye maybe your right i dont have a problem with her pesion being reduced like everyone elses i do have aproblem with people arguing she should get it until she is 65 and demonising her because of the excess's of the time

if you were in her position you would be taking the penion and so would i

average_runner

I dont think its to do with if you are in her position or not!!

You should not be working if your claiming a pension and thats it. I know the public sector will be against this because alot of them retire at 55 and claim their pension but also work full time.

Alot of gaurds do this on early retirement.

Sorry its wrong, either you retire and stop working or you work.

Cant have it both ways!!


Dont blame the public sector taking advantage of this as we all would but goverment needs to shut this loop hole.Would also create a job for someone on the dole

PeakOutput

average_runner wrote: »

I dont think its to do with if you are in her position or not!!

You should not be working if your claiming a pension and thats it. I know the public sector will be against this because alot of them retire at 55 and claim their pension but also work full time.

Alot of gaurds do this on early retirement.

Sorry its wrong, either you retire and stop working or you work.

Cant have it both ways!!

of course you can dont be ridicolous its always been like this EVERYONE is entitled to work and receive a pension at the same time

what she is receiving is not a typical pension its simply defered pay labelled a pension for simplicity, its a perk of the job. my dad is entitled to a pension in 5 years if he takes early retirement. of course he is entitled to receive this money and if he wants to take up a new job.

average_runner

I know where your coming from now!!
My father is the same and I believe its wrong!

If its your own private pension and you got nothing off the government or your employer, yeah maybe so it can be up to you to work and retire.


If your pension is with the state and you have contribute yourself to it, if you choose to early retire and work, you should only get the money you put in yourself and not the state money.

Otherwise why dont we all work and claim the dole????? Exactly the same thing.

PeakOutput

average_runner wrote: »

I know where your coming from now!!
My father is the same and I believe its wrong!

If its your own private pension and you got nothing off the government or your employer, yeah maybe so it can be up to you to work and retire.


If your pension is with the state and you have contribute yourself to it, if you choose to early retire and work, you should only get the money you put in yourself and not the state money.

Otherwise why dont we all work and claim the dole????? Exactly the same thing.

besides saying its the same as claiming the dole and working i can accpet your opinion even though i completely disagree with it

contract says after 20 years im entitled to a pension(no matter who is giving me the pension or contributing to it) after 20 years im entitled to take the pension and go on to do whatever the hell i want

dean21

PeakOutput wrote: »

of course you can dont be ridicolous its always been like this EVERYONE is entitled to work and receive a pension at the same time

what she is receiving is not a typical pension its simply defered pay labelled a pension for simplicity, its a perk of the job. my dad is entitled to a pension in 5 years if he takes early retirement. of course he is entitled to receive this money and if he wants to take up a new job.

Yes entitled to but morally is it right
Like we have 450k on the dole and we have people on pension working
Take teacher for example, young teacher cant get jobs because retired teacher are going back and working some hours a week

IrishTonyO

PeakOutput wrote: »

they shouldnt have to give up anything tbh and its just begrudgery demanding they do the terms were overly generous thats not their fault and there is nothing wrong with being on a 'pension' while you are still working

Oh it's not their fault, but by your logic in the other thread, they benefited so they are to blame

dean21

MaceFace wrote: »

Well, I disagree, the Croke Park deal had nothing to do with it as the media would have found some other reasoning to justify these payments from happening.

Besides that, it is a red herring. Last week Boucher, this week Geoghegan-Quinn and Stagg.
Seriously, big deal - this saves the State about €150k in two weeks. Only another €3999850k in the next 34 weeks.

It goes to show that either:
1. The citizens are stupid
2. Those in power are going a very good job creating these stories to hide the real stories that matter.

I think it is being used as an example.
like for the 450k on the dole, to be listing to a banker whose bank has taken billions off the tax payer, wants to get 1.5 million pension top up so he can retire at 55 on 6000 k a week, and the only reason he had to back down was because it would have being the final nail in the croke park deal.

PeakOutput

dean21 wrote: »

Yes entitled to but morally is it right
Like we have 450k on the dole and we have people on pension working
Take teacher for example, young teacher cant get jobs because retired teacher are going back and working some hours a week

it is no1s business what she or anyone else decides to do. she fulfilled the requirements at the time to be entitled to this pension it is no1s business after that, just like its no1s business if teachers decide to work part time or my dad decides to set up his own business.

im not saying it is not too much im saying she has done nothing wrong and to villify her IS morally wrong.

the pensions for tds have been changed so arguing about actions that cant be retrospectively changed accept by the person in question volunteering to change it, is a waste of time and a distraction

beeno67

PeakOutput wrote: »

of course you can dont be ridicolous its always been like this EVERYONE is entitled to work and receive a pension at the same time

.

But not if they keep doing the same job. She received a pension (which incidentally is worth about €2.5 million) when she retired from politics. She is now back in politics and therefore should have to forego the pension. When she retires/gets sacked from this job she will be entitled to 3 pensions. Ex TD, Ex minister, ex EU commissioner. This will add about €1.1 million to the value of her pension. This will bring her total pension package to about €3.5 million or more than she earned in her entire political career

beeno67

PeakOutput wrote: »

the pensions for tds have been changed so arguing about actions that cant be retrospectively changed accept by the person in question volunteering to change it, is a waste of time and a distraction

Of course it can be changed. It just needs the political will to change it. It would require a referendum to do so but that should be no more than a formality. TDs are giving serious consideration to a referendum to allow them reduce the wages of judges if enough do not take a voluntary cut. Surely they should do the same to reduce ministers pensions.

PeakOutput

beeno67 wrote: »

But not if they keep doing the same job

again you are confusing this with a typical pension, its not, its defered pay.

also there is nothing wrong with retiring form say being a teacher and then deciding to go back to work later. you have done everything required to entitle you to a pension therefore you can take that pension and then decide what you want to d, one does not and should not affect the other

pension expert on newstalk now

IrishTonyO

PeakOutput wrote: »

they shouldnt have to give up anything tbh and its just begrudgery demanding they do the terms were overly generous thats not their fault and there is nothing wrong with being on a 'pension' while you are still working

the croke park deal ahs had success but this is not one of the success's

Well care to explain how it is not their fault, yet in the Marie Geoghean Quinn thread, you assert that in a democracy everyone is to blame?

PeakOutput

beeno67 wrote: »

Of course it can be changed. It just needs the political will to change it. It would require a referendum to do so but that should be no more than a formality. TDs are giving serious consideration to a referendum to allow them reduce the wages of judges if enough do not take a voluntary cut. Surely they should do the same to reduce ministers pensions.

im pretty sure ministerial pensions have nothing to do with the constitution but i could be wrong

beeno67

PeakOutput wrote: »

again you are confusing this with a typical pension, its not, its defered pay.

It is not deferred pay as it is not a set amount. So if she died the day after leaving office she gets nothing if she lives 50 more years she gets paid for the 50 years. That is what a pension is. As I said the value of her pension ie the amount she would want to have invested in a private pension to get the same outcome, is more than she earned her entire political career. Actually it is about 2 times her lifetime political earnings

beeno67

PeakOutput wrote: »

im pretty sure ministerial pensions have nothing to do with the constitution but i could be wrong

Well the reason given by Cowen that her pension could not be reduced, is that it would require a referendum

PeakOutput

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Well care to explain how it is not their fault, yet in the Marie Geoghean Quinn thread, you assert that in a democracy everyone is to blame?

if in another thread i say ul's student union is not to blame for something are you going to come into the thread and say 'oh but you said in the other thread in a democracy everyone is to blame'?

im not talking about the boom and recession in this thread. she was given a job with certain benefits she is entitled to those benefits and the job having those benefits has nothing to do with her(and these benefits have been changed for the next goverment). IF they can be legally changed retrospectively(which i doubt) then the amount of these pensions should probably be reduced. its the villification of one person to distract from the important facts that i object to

beeno67

beeno67 wrote: »

It is not deferred pay as it is not a set amount. So if she died the day after leaving office she gets nothing if she lives 50 more years she gets paid for the 50 years. That is what a pension is. As I said the value of her pension ie the amount she would want to have invested in a private pension to get the same outcome, is more than she earned her entire political career. Actually it is about 2 times her lifetime political earnings

I should add to this that I have no problem her receiving a pension from any work she did in the private sector for the 12 years or so when she was not politically active. This is funded by herself and she is fully entitled to it. I don't believe she should get a pension from one section of the political system when she has simply moved to a different section.

PeakOutput

beeno67 wrote: »

As I said the value of her pension ie the amount she would want to have invested in a private pension to get the same outcome, is more than she earned her entire political career. Actually it is about 2 times her lifetime political earnings

and thats her fault because.....?????

beeno67

PeakOutput wrote: »

and thats her fault because.....?????

I never said it was her fault although as an elected politician for 20 years she does share in the responsibility for having such a situation in this country. Again she never at any stage in her career opposed the changes to pensions that made them more attractive to her.

I am saying I don't think she should be entitled to it. She was right to stop taking it while a commissioner. I also believe the rules should be changed to stop any politician receiving a pension while still working for the state.

IrishTonyO

PeakOutput wrote: »

if in another thread i say ul's student union is not to blame for something are you going to come into the thread and say 'oh but you said in the other thread in a democracy everyone is to blame'?

im not talking about the boom and recession in this thread. she was given a job with certain benefits she is entitled to those benefits and the job having those benefits has nothing to do with her(and these benefits have been changed for the next goverment). IF they can be legally changed retrospectively(which i doubt) then the amount of these pensions should probably be reduced. its the villification of one person to distract from the important facts that i object to

And those benefits were defined and improved by the government(s) that the majority of the people voted for, you believe in collective responsibility for the boom and bust, yet you don't believe in it for pensions for politicians. A bit of a dichotomy wouldn't you think?

PeakOutput

IrishTonyO wrote: »

And those benefits were defined and improved by the government(s) that the majority of the people voted for, you believe in collective responsibility for the boom and bust, yet you don't believe in it for pensions for politicians. A bit of a dichotomy wouldn't you think?

no i dont, im saying if they can be changed retrospectively for everyone then they should be but if they cant we should shut the hell up and concentrate on the important things. im saying that its not fair to single her out and every week we seem to be spoonfed another villian to be outraged about

im not saying she isnt responsible the same as the rest of the goverment for the recession(im not familiar with her political history) and im not saying she is any less responsible than anyone else in the country

i am saying its not her fault her t+c's were so good and that was pretty obvious but if it makes you happy twist away

beeno67

PeakOutput wrote: »

no i dont, im saying if they can be changed retrospectively for everyone then they should be but if they cant we should shut the hell up

But they can be changed retrospectively so we should shout from the rooftops and get them changed.

PeakOutput

beeno67 wrote: »

But they can be changed retrospectively so we should shout from the rooftops and get them changed.

i dlove to see the cost of a referendum against the potential savings from these pensions

the pensions are changed from now on personally i think that was absolutely necessary and am happy enough with that

beeno67

PeakOutput wrote: »

i dlove to see the cost of a referendum against the potential savings from these pensions

the pensions are changed from now on personally i think that was absolutely necessary and am happy enough with that

The cost would be minimal. We are already looking at a referendum on the rights of children +/- reducing judges pay. It could simply be added on here or even at the next Dail election.

Even a stand alone referendum would be covered over the term of one Dail. In otherwords assuming FF lost the next election but their current ministers got reelected.

dean21

we are gone off the point
Great to see more Td's giving it up now as well.
We need more of this type of change across all sectors of ireland

MaceFace

dean21 wrote: »

we are gone off the point
Great to see more Td's giving it up now as well.
We need more of this type of change across all sectors of ireland

We need more people to voluntarily give up their legal entitlements?
Maybe, but as I said, it is irrelevant as even if we had every elected official in the country working pro-bono, we still wouldn't be close to pluggin the hole in the finances.

What we need is pressure put on the government to clearly outline the plan on how we are going to get from 14.3% deficit to 3% deficit within the next 4 years!

Everything else is irrelevant!

bondjames

MaceFace wrote: »

We need more people to voluntarily give up their legal entitlements?
Maybe, but as I said, it is irrelevant as even if we had every elected official in the country working pro-bono, we still wouldn't be close to pluggin the hole in the finances.

What we need is pressure put on the government to clearly outline the plan on how we are going to get from 14.3% deficit to 3% deficit within the next 4 years!

Everything else is irrelevant!

It not irrelevant
When people see this happening it will make it a bit easer for them to take the medicine that is being given.
Like people on social welfare need to see things like fat cat politicians being made give up there perks, before they are asked to take another cut in payments.

PeakOutput

bondjames wrote: »

Like people on social welfare need to see things like fat cat politicians being made give up there perks, before they are asked to take another cut in payments.

no they dont, they might want or prefer to see that but they dont need to see that

The_Honeybadger

MaceFace wrote: »

We need more people to voluntarily give up their legal entitlements?
Maybe, but as I said, it is irrelevant as even if we had every elected official in the country working pro-bono, we still wouldn't be close to pluggin the hole in the finances.

What we need is pressure put on the government to clearly outline the plan on how we are going to get from 14.3% deficit to 3% deficit within the next 4 years!

Everything else is irrelevant!

I think this is a good point, people are afraid of what is coming down the line in the next budget and beyond, and consumer confidence is on the floor. The government laying out there plans would at least show transparency and may bring about a sense of togetherness as long as the plans are seen to be fair, services will be cut and we will all be paying more tax, I think we know this already, but a little clarification on how it will be done would be nice. Problem is the vested interest groups will immediately get to work lobbying everybody they possibly can to change the plans and protect their own interests. Another massive problem is that much of the Government strategy appears to be based on nothing more than hope, hope that we will see a recovery globally, hope that property prices will begin to rise again, hope that people will start spending again etc, it is difficult to formulate concrete plans on such shaky foundations, therefore whatever austerity measures agreed would no doubt be underestimated and would be subject to change. What really dissapoints me is the lies, like from Lenihan after the last budget saying the worst is over etc, pure bull, and every week we seem to turn a new corner, if we want solidarity we need honesty.