Why was Peter Sutherland given a platform on the RTE news?

blue_steel

Sand wrote: »

Firstly, its funny when people talk about dealing with the crazy wages in the public sector, its the poor old nurses and firemen that get dragged out to act as some sort of human shield to protect the crazy abuses. "NO, NO!" they cry "Dont touch Neary's pension, or our expenses tab! Think of the nurses!"

I used the example of nurses because I know a lot of them and I feel outraged when s**ts like Sutherland have the cheek to suggest they have their wages cut. He doesn't deserve to breath the same air as most of them. I agree they are used by the unions for propoganda but you can hardly blame them for that.

There isnt. Studies have demonstrated a clear and significant wage premium in the public sector. Private sector workers not only have far worse pension terms than public sector workers, they have to pay for them as well as trying to cover their own. The terms and conditions on which the public sector operate are incredible versus conditions in the real world, where I can walk into work tommorrow and be told my company has decided my job can be done cheaper in Poland (which has already happened).

Studies by vested interests can be used to prove anything. I prefer empirical evidence. I earned 20K more a year in the private sector doing the same job I do now in the public. I earned even more when I was self employed. I'm not complaining. That was in boom time and I don't expect to earn that much now. I just know that in my field the private sector has always paid more than the public. Always makes me smile when I hear about the publice sector premium.

Thirdly: You might disagree with everything I say above. And you know what, you might be totally right, and I might be totally wrong. But theres one essential truth...We are earning roughly 33 billion per year, and we are spending 60 billion per year, the majority of that being on public sector wages and social transfers.

We simply cannot afford you. No matter how great you are, we cannot afford you. We do not have the money. No money.

Fair enough but you do realise tax revenue in all countries goes to pay the wages of the people providing public services. Its the major overhead in any enterprise, public or private. Of course there is waste in the system. We should slash public sector pay above 100K. We should slash the number of TDs. We should slash lots of things. But unless you want ordinary people to work for nothing there is little room for more pays cuts without major knock on effects in the wider economy. So if their is a gap between revenue and expenditure we need more revenue. That means higher taxes for everyone, not just the people who provide your services.

Welease

blue_steel wrote: »

You have no idea what I did or didn't vote for. All I know is I would rather you took a paycut than a nurse working in A&E. He or she makes a greater contribution to society than you ever have (see I can make assumptions too).

This idea of the private sector being an engine of innovation and wealth creation is a nonsense. I worked in the private sector for 15 years and most big companies are as bloated and self-serving as any ps dept.

Do you want normal workers to pay for this mess or just normal workers outside the private sector? Because the hole will never be filled by taking 5% off 300,000 workers every year or two. Or will it just make you feel better?

It's collective bargaining, you, as in your unions voted for the agreement, and you got it.. your individual vote is of little concern, as I assume you didn't leave your union because of the vote if you were against it..

My point is.. it's the same old emotional horsesh1t arguement becuase you lack a reasoned arguement to make.. Anyone who wants to cut costs in the PS must be a nurse hater who wants to see them work for nothing and publically flogged.. Isn't that how it goes?

But back in the real world, the rest of us understand there are in fact 1000's of unnecessary employees in the PS (as per McCarthy and other reports), we understand the PS have a pay premium as per numerous reports (incl ESRI), we know the the PS benefits as unsustainable as per Pension Insecurity Reports, we know money is squandered in the HSE & FAS... but any mention of rationalistion is obviously a direct attack on our poor nurses..

blue_steel

Welease wrote: »

It's collective bargaining, you, as in your unions voted for the agreement, and you got it.. your individual vote is of little concern, as I assume you didn't leave your union because of the vote if you were against it.

How do you know I'm even in a union! Its not mandatory you know
I accept no credit or blame for anything the unions have done.

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

My point is.. it's the same old emotional horsesh1t arguement becuase you lack a reasoned arguement to make.. Anyone who wants to cut costs in the PS must be a nurse hater who wants to see them work for nothing and publically flogged.. Isn't that how it goes?

Nurses, gaurds, teachers, firemen make up the bulk of public servants. Then you have administrators that are needed to allow them to do their work. Then you have the civil service proper.

Welease wrote: »

But back in the real world, the rest of us understand there are in fact 1000's of unnecessary employees in the PS (as per McCarthy and other reports), we understand the PS have a pay premium as per numerous reports (incl ESRI), we know the the PS benefits as unsustainable as per Pension Insecurity Reports, we know money is squandered in the HSE & FAS... but any mention of rationalistion is obviously a direct attack on our poor nurses..

And the Croke Park Deal has been signed off which allows for a reduction in numbers through natural wastage and redeployment of staff and reform.

Welease

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

I think that your figure of €128 billion for Public Sector Pensions in the next sixty years plans for up to 600,000 Public Servants.

I think you need to recheck your figures

The 128B (recent estimate, up from the 105B stated in 2009) is the countries current liabilites for existing pensions (i.e. thats what we already owe that we haven't paid out, as those folks have not reached retirement age).. We can afford to pay current liabilities, because there are 300,000 are paying into the pension fund, and 95,000 (or so) are drawing.. This has been widely documented as unsustainble in the future as the gap between retirees and contributors falls sharply.. for exactly the same reasons that private sector companies cannot afford to run these pensions.

Welease

blue_steel wrote: »

How do you know I'm even in a union! Its not mandatory you know
I accept no credit or blame for anything the unions have done.

But you are working under the agreement and conditions imposed by the CP agreement...an agreement which means that those who are unnecessary for the running of the country continue to enjoy premium wages while your poor nurses get shafted..

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Nurses, gaurds, teachers, firemen make up the bulk of public servants. Then you have administrators that are needed to allow them to do their work. Then you have the civil service proper.



And the Croke Park Deal has been signed off which allows for a reduction in numbers through natural wastage and redeployment of staff and reform.

So we can't stop cutting waste/excess in FAS/HSE? or is the introduction of the tired old poor nurses arguement just irrelevant rubbish?

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

So we can't stop cutting waste/excess in FAS/HSE? or is the introduction of the tired old poor nurses arguement just irrelevant rubbish?

What are you talking about? Yes we can tackle waste in the HSE/FAS. The framework for doing that is the in the Croke Park Deal.

I was simply pointing out that the majority of public sector workers are in fact teachers, gaurds, nurses, firemen, and administrators on modest salaries.

Look you are obviously impervious to reason and believe the public sector should be slashed and burnt regardless of the facts. I'm done arguing with you. If you want to believe that the public sector is responsible for the biggest banking sector bust since the great recession then good for you.

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

What are you talking about? Yes we can tackle waste in the HSE/FAS. The framework for doing that is the in the Croke Park Deal.

I was simply pointing out that the majority of public sector workers are in fact teachers, gaurds, nurses, firemen, and administrators on modest salaries.

Look you are obviously impervious to reason and believe the public sector should be slashed and burnt regardless of the facts. I'm done arguing with you. If you want to believe that the public sector is responsible for the biggest banking sector bust since the great recession then good for you.

No you just keep making up items I have never said.. Case in point..

" If you want to believe that the public sector is responsible for the biggest banking sector bust since the great recession then good for you."

Where exactly did I say anything of the sort?

If you believe, we can get out of this hole without making deeper cuts then you are welcome to that opinion... I have never stated anything other than that more cuts need to be made (in the absensce of unforcasted growth), and most sane opinion seems to concur, although there are obviously differences in where the cuts can be made.

This next budget will be looking to make cuts/taxes of ~3B... the following budget will likely have to do the same... ergo deeper cuts...

Citizen_Cutback

Welease wrote: »

I think you need to recheck your figures

The 128B (recent estimate, up from the 105B stated in 2009) is the countries current liabilites for existing pensions (i.e. thats what we already owe that we haven't paid out, as those folks have not reached retirement age).. We can afford to pay current liabilities, because there are 300,000 are paying into the pension fund, and 95,000 (or so) are drawing.. This has been widely documented as unsustainble in the future as the gap between retirees and contributors falls sharply.. for exactly the same reasons that private sector companies cannot afford to run these pensions.

I stand corrected.

The 128 billion includes a figure of €12.7 billion for post 1995 employed Public servants who pay Higher Rate PRSI and who have an entitlement to a Contributory State Pension.

You might also like to note that the Contributory/Non-Contributory State Pension cost the Exchequer €4.4 billion in 2009.

http://audgen.irlgov.ie/documents/annualreports/2009/ReportVol1_09_rev2.pdf Page 29
The accrued liability for occupational pensions of public servants at 31 December 2009 is
estimated at €116.4 billion.
It is estimated that the value of the additional accrued liabilities arising from integration of the
State pension into overall pension benefits is €12.7 billion as at 31 December 2009. This would
bring the total cost of funding accrued pension benefits to citizens currently employed in the
public service to €129 billion.
Net new entrant contribution rates – the proportion of pay needed to fund retirement benefits for a
typical civil servant would cost 11.9% of pensionable remuneration for occupational pension
entitlements and a further 7.6% to fund State Pension.

http://audgen.irlgov.ie/documents/annualreports/2009/ReportVol2_09_rev2.pdf Page 205
The Department of Social Protection pays State pensions to older and retired people under a
range of schemes. In terms of number of beneficiaries and annual expenditure, the main
schemes243 are
􀂃 State pension (contributory) — which is paid to around 265,000 pensioners, at a cost of
over €3.4 billion in 2009
􀂃 State pension (non-contributory) — which is paid to around 98,000 pensioners, at a cost of
€1 billion in 2009.

Welease

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

I stand corrected.

The 128 billion includes a figure of €12.7 billion for post 1995 employed Public servants who pay Higher Rate PRSI and who have an entitlement to a Contributory State Pension.

You might also like to note that the Contributory/Non-Contributory State Pension cost the Exchequer €4.4 billion in 2009.

http://audgen.irlgov.ie/documents/annualreports/2009/ReportVol1_09_rev2.pdf Page 29
The accrued liability for occupational pensions of public servants at 31 December 2009 is
estimated at €116.4 billion.
It is estimated that the value of the additional accrued liabilities arising from integration of the
State pension into overall pension benefits is €12.7 billion as at 31 December 2009. This would
bring the total cost of funding accrued pension benefits to citizens currently employed in the
public service to €129 billion.
Net new entrant contribution rates – the proportion of pay needed to fund retirement benefits for a
typical civil servant would cost 11.9% of pensionable remuneration for occupational pension
entitlements and a further 7.6% to fund State Pension.

http://audgen.irlgov.ie/documents/annualreports/2009/ReportVol2_09_rev2.pdf Page 205
The Department of Social Protection pays State pensions to older and retired people under a
range of schemes. In terms of number of beneficiaries and annual expenditure, the main
schemes243 are
�� State pension (contributory) — which is paid to around 265,000 pensioners, at a cost of
over €3.4 billion in 2009
�� State pension (non-contributory) — which is paid to around 98,000 pensioners, at a cost of
€1 billion in 2009.

But isn't that the problem?, those liabilities already exist, and as per the numbers you quoted new entrants have a % scheme which will fund it (I'm not so sure) going forward (the pension levy etc.)..

There is nothign in the kitty (as it's a pay as you go scheme), so the current 128B or so liabilities have to come from somewhere.. and that somewhere will be the exchequer...

There are are 300,000, plus 95,000 currently retired who will be owed 128Billion, and they have only recently started paying levies.. those levies will to a degree cover their cost going forward but do not pay for the liabilities (128b) currently accrued..

For example.. if I have 30 years service.. I have currently built up 30/80th's of my DB pension fund (plus 90/80th's of the lump sum).. I only started paying a pension levy 2 years ago (or whenever).. the state is liable for the shortfall from the previous 28 years.. that's the problem

Citizen_Cutback

Welease wrote: »

But isn't that the problem?, those liabilities already exist, and as per the numbers you quoted new entrants have a % scheme which will fund it (I'm not so sure) going forward (the pension levy etc.)..

There is nothign in the kitty (as it's a pay as you go scheme), so the current 128B or so liabilities have to come from somewhere.. and that somewhere will be the exchequer...

There are are 300,000, plus 95,000 currently retired who will be owed 128Billion, and they have only recently started paying levies.. those levies will to a degree cover their cost going forward but do not pay for the liabilities (128b) currently accrued..

For example.. if I have 30 years service.. I have currently built up 30/80th's of my DB pension fund (plus 90/80th's of the lump sum).. I only started paying a pension levy 2 years ago (or whenever).. the state is liable for the shortfall from the previous 28 years.. that's the problem

I think you miss the point. The funding mechanism for Public Service Pensions began to change in 1995. A significant portion, €12.8 billion to date, of pension payments for those recruited after 1995 has been transferred to the PRSI funded pension.

The €128 billion figure is the net cost to the Exchequer for funding all pensions for current and retired members for the next sixty years. The net cost in 2009 was approximately €800 million.

There is no way you can play this to make it comparable to the Bank bailout or as a solution for the current fiscal crisis.

Sorry!

vincentdunne

This has just become a pissing contest and is no longer relevant to the topic of the thread.
It is not about private v. public.
No public servant (unless at a very high level) had anything to do with blowing the boom. Neither did 99.9% of the private sector.

Don't you realise that Sutherland is laughing his ass off at all of us. Get real, folks.

When Ireland became independent, we swapped one shower of gits for another. 1798 anyone (Oh, sorry, They fought among themselves too)

Welease

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

I think you miss the point. The funding mechanism for Public Service Pensions began to change in 1995. A significant portion, €12.8 billion to date, of pension payments for those recruited after 1995 has been transferred to the PRSI funded pension.

The €128 billion figure is the net cost to the Exchequer for funding all pensions for current and retired members for the next sixty years. The net cost in 2009 was approximately €800 million.

There is no way you can play this to make it comparable to the Bank bailout or as a solution for the current fiscal crisis.

Sorry!

With respect, you are even ignoring your own figures because they don't suit your perspective...

Using your figures.. we have liabilities of 128b, and we have 12.8b in the pot.. that is a shortfall of over €115 billion..

Where is this money money coming from?

It's not coming from PS contributions.. McCarthy/Bord Snip Nua report raised their concerns on the funding model

"The cost implications of public service pensions, both in the shorter and longer terms, are an area of concern to BS. The real annual cost of providing public service pensions is some €7.7bn each year, made up of an annual accrual cost of €5.4bn each year over and above the €2.3bn cash cost of existing pensions in 2009 (on the assumption of an accruing pension cost of, on average, 30% of nominal salary)."
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1017193.shtml

We do not collect €7.7 billion per year from the PS to service their pensions.. That is an undeniable fact, and yet people continue to claim that PS pensions are sefl funded..

In 2007 our liabilitied were estimated at 105 billion, now in 2010 they are approaching 128 billion (for various reasons)... How big does it need to get before people start to realise that this self funding mantra is pure rubbish?

There is more than a single elephant in the room, and it's somewhat laughable (with respect) for people to continue point at the banker elephant, and ignore the other large elephants they brought with them.

Is this problem bigger than the banking crisis?.. thats always going to be a matter of opinion.. Sutherland in his comments at least is paint the bleak picture of what needs to be done irrespective of whether he takes his full share of pain.. those who continue to deny the existance of a pension problen are a much bigger issue in my mind.. they are the ones who told those who urged restraint a few years ago to go commit suicide... denial never fixed any problem..

Rgds.

Tipp Man

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Look you are obviously impervious to reason and believe the public sector should be slashed and burnt regardless of the facts. I'm done arguing with you. If you want to believe that the public sector is responsible for the biggest banking sector bust since the great recession then good for you.

What does the current budget deficit have to do with the banking crisis??

Look get this into yer heads once and for all, the irish banking crisis is a ONE OFF expense of whatever it is 20-30 bn probably (for better or for worse)

The current budget deficit is an ANNUAL deficit of 20bn plus and NOTHING to do with the banking problems

Can people get it into their heads that government spending is exceeding government income by the amount of the bank bailout every year, yes every year

Now what are the 2 biggest items in government expenditure, you got it the public sector and the social welfare

both need to be slashed

Citizen_Cutback

@vincentdunne Your contribution adds nothing to this thread or is no more relevant to the subject heading than any other but Welease has a history of hijacking threads to spread disinformation about the current cost of Public Sector Pensions to the Exchequer.

Welease wrote: »

With respect, you are even ignoring your own figures because they don't suit your perspective...

Using your figures.. we have liabilities of 128b, and we have 12.8b in the pot.. that is a shortfall of over €115 billion..

The €12.8 billion figure is an accrued liability of the PRSI fund as of December 2009 which will come due for payment when Public Servants hired on/after 1995 retire.

Welease wrote: »

Where is this money money coming from?

It's not coming from PS contributions.. McCarthy/Bord Snip Nua report raised their concerns on the funding model

"The cost implications of public service pensions, both in the shorter and longer terms, are an area of concern to BS. The real annual cost of providing public service pensions is some €7.7bn each year, made up of an annual accrual cost of €5.4bn each year over and above the €2.3bn cash cost of existing pensions in 2009 (on the assumption of an accruing pension cost of, on average, 30% of nominal salary)."
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1017193.shtml

I have highlighted in red the actual gross cost of Public Sector Pensions in 2009, the figure is €2.3 billion.

This figure is reduced to several hundred million when allowance is made for Public Servant Pension related deductions.

Sometimes a picture paints a thousand words:



Welease where is the impending disaster you speak about?


In 2000 the Commission on Public Service Pensions delivered their report which can be found here:
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf Page 37

The Commission concluded that it was not convinced of the need to fully fund public service pensions.

It concluded that the basic reason for establishing a pension fund in the private sector to provide security of benefits does not apply where the State is the ultimate guarantor of benefits.

In addition, the economic arguments in favour of funding were less than conclusive and it would not address the expected peak in public service pension costs and would limit budgetary flexibility.

The Commission saw definite advantages in the idea of partially funding future public service pension costs to help to smooth the pensions bill and ensure diversification of State expenditure at a time when the economy had near full employment and buoyant revenue.

Tipp Man

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

I have highlighted in red the actual gross cost of Public Sector Pensions in 2009, the figure is €2.3 billion.

This figure is reduced to several hundred million when allowance is made for Public Servant Pension related deductions.

Sometimes a picture paints a thousand words:



Welease where is the impending disaster you speak about?

Why would you provide a graph which clearly shows that the gap between pension contributions and pension expenditure is increasing and will be over 7 billion ANNUALY by 2058??

If you add the gaps for every year between 2033 and 2058 then you will see just how close you are to the 120billion pensions deficit there is

And considering the increased numbers that have been hired in the last 5 years, the large public sector pay increases in the last 10 years then this gap will only get a lot bigger

Just curious based on your position throughout this thread

AlekSmart

This has just become a pissing contest and is no longer relevant to the topic of the thread.
It is not about private v. public.
No public servant (unless at a very high level) had anything to do with blowing the boom. Neither did 99.9% of the private sector.

Well done Vincentdunne,+100% on that sentiment.

Hopefully the Mods will split the circular P vs P codology,which only serves to allow the likes of P Sutherland to pop up unchallenged on a State run News programme to lecture the great-unwashed on their fragrant situation.

As yet we have no answer to the Thread Title...WHY was this individual,of no particular worth or contributory influence to the State,given prime NEWS time to peddle his self-serving guff ?

Cathal Goan to the red telephone please...:mad:

Your second point Vincentdunne,is equally important.

One of the mysteries surrounding this State`s miserable preformance in almost every area of it`s operations is the seemingly invisible nature of the "Seniors".

The Departmental Secretaries General,their deputies (some of whom have moved into their departed masters chairs) and a host of Consultants and Advisers (Of whom Suds may well be one) have simply retired with grace,honour and a BIG fat pension whilst the remainder of the country attempts to hang,draw and quarter the hewers of wood and drawers of water...the Hebrew Slaves of the Peter Sutherland Opera.....

The FACT remains that the orchestrators and driving forces behind the collapse of Éire Teo were remarkable few in number and would most likely have been known to each other professionally and socially.....that gene-pool was remarkably small.

Turnstyle

liammur wrote: »

I wouldn't blame a lot of PS workers to be unwilling to accept these cuts.
We need far more leadership from the government first, i.e. Lenihan's decision to exclude top civil servants from the PS pay cuts made an absolute mockery of everything.

+1
there appears to be one rule for the ordinary man and another for the scum and thats what gets people like the OP backs up, and i fully agree. I would gladly play my part in getting out of this mess and move on without complaint if the same rules applied to everyone and justice was served. There are bankers, controllers and politicians walking about that should have been held to account a long time ago. Its funny how the minute talk of an anglo default starts gathering some momentum this guy gets invited onto prime time tv to warn us otherwise...

Citizen_Cutback

Tipp Man wrote: »

Why would you provide a graph which clearly shows that the gap between pension contributions and pension expenditure is increasing and will be over 7 billion ANNUALY by 2058??

If you add the gaps for every year between 2033 and 2058 then you will see just how close you are to the 120billion pensions deficit there is

And considering the increased numbers that have been hired in the last 5 years, the large public sector pay increases in the last 10 years then this gap will only get a lot bigger

Just curious based on your position throughout this thread

My position throughout this thread is that we should stop talking about Public Sector Pension provision for the future when the real issues at the moment are the Banking Bailout and the Budget Deficit.

You can see from the graph that in 2009 Public Sector Pensions cost somewhere in the region of €300 million.

Compare that with a Budget deficit of €20 billion and a Bank Ransom payment of €40-80 billion due for payment now.

Unlike in Private Sector Banking etc... there is no place to hide in the Public Service.

Everything has to accounted for and be transparent.

A lot will have changed by 2058.

Already PRSI Pension retirement ages have increased to 68 which is not adjusted for in the figures above and will reduce pension costs in future.

As a result if the graph was drawn today the black contribution line would be higher relative to bar-tops between 2028 and 2058.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0303/breaking52.html

The Taoiseach today announced a major reform of future State, private and public service pensions. Under the new National Pensions Framework, the age at which people qualify for the State pension will increase over time - to 66 years of age in 2014, 67 in 2021 and 68 in 2028.

This means everyone now under the age of 49 will have to work until they are 68 before they can draw down the State pension.

The graph is calculated on a discount rate of 3%. It is not all that long ago that this rate would have been 5-6%. The graph is an analog of what the cost of providing Public Sector Pensions would be if costed using the Private Pensions Industry norms which does not allow for mutuality of risk/reward in the same way.

Tipp Man

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

My position throughout this thread is that we should stop talking about Public Sector Pension provision for the future when the real issues at the moment are the Banking Bailout and the Budget Deficit.

You can see from the graph that in 2009 Public Sector Pensions cost somewhere in the region of €300 million.

Compare that with a Budget deficit of €20 billion and a Bank Ransom payment of €40-80 billion due for payment now.

Unlike in Private Sector Banking etc... there is no place to hide in the Public Service.

Everything has to accounted for and be transparent.

A lot will have changed by 2058.

Already PRSI Pension retirement ages have increased to 68 which is not adjusted for in the figures above and will reduce pension costs in future.

As a result if the graph was drawn today the black contribution line would be higher between 2028 and 2058.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0303/breaking52.html


The graph is calculated on a discount rate of 3%. It is not all that long ago that this rate would have been 5-6%. The graph is an analog of what the cost of providing Public Sector Pensions would be if costed using the Private Pensions Industry norms which does not allow for mutuality of risk/reward in the same way.

Does the graph indicate that by 2058 there will be a huge deficit in the public sector pension plan between income and expenditure? does the graph show this to be around 7billion annually by that time? does the graph show that the gap is increasing at a rapid rate? If you add up all the pension deficits on that graph from 2010 to 2058 do you come up with a number close to 128billion (or maybe more)??

Now tell me there isn't a public pension time bomb just waiting to explode

Tipp Man

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

Unlike in Private Sector Banking etc... there is no place to hide in the Public Service.

Everything has to accounted for and be transparent.

Just realised this rubbish, possibly the funniest statment i have seen on here

It's like FAS never happened

Citizen_Cutback

Tipp Man wrote: »

Just realised this rubbish, possibly the funniest statment i have seen on here

It's like FAS never happened

As Bertie would say "You're only a Waffler".

It is obvious that you didn't read my post in the first place.

Tipp Man

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

As Bertie would say "You're only a Waffler".

It is obvious that you didn't read my post in the first place.

Anybody who posted the diagram above and thought it was actually backing up a position that the public sector pension isn't a time bomb cannot be taken seriously, so with all due respect you Sir are the waffler (although your not alone in this thread)

Now tell me again about the accountability and transparency of FAS, with is annual expenditure in excess of 1 billion

Citizen_Cutback

Tipp Man wrote: »

Anybody who posted the diagram above and thought it was actually backing up a position that the public sector pension isn't a time bomb cannot be taken seriously, so with all due respect you Sir are the waffler (although your not alone in this thread)

Now tell me again about the accountability and transparency of FAS, with is annual expenditure in excess of 1 billion

Now who is going off topic? Typical Red Top trash headline regurgitation!

My post stands.

Others with reasoning abilities will read it and be informed. Those that don't read it won't!

Tipp Man

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

Now who is going off topic? Typical Red Top trash headline regurgitation!

My post stands.

Others with reasoning abilities will read it and be informed. Those that don't read it won't!

I have asked varioius questions on the numbers that the graph shows and you have answered none of them

You were the one who said "there is no place to hide in the Public Service.

Everything has to accounted for and be transparent" (thats your direct quote)

So I asked you how FAS fitted into the public sector with regards to accountability and transparency.

Yet again you failed to answer the question

Welease

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

@vincentdunne Your contribution adds nothing to this thread or is no more relevant to the subject heading than any other but Welease has a history of hijacking threads to spread disinformation about the current cost of Public Sector Pensions to the Exchequer.



The €12.8 billion figure is an accrued liability of the PRSI fund as of December 2009 which will come due for payment when Public Servants hired on/after 1995 retire.



I have highlighted in red the actual gross cost of Public Sector Pensions in 2009, the figure is €2.3 billion.

This figure is reduced to several hundred million when allowance is made for Public Servant Pension related deductions.

Sometimes a picture paints a thousand words:



Welease where is the impending disaster you speak about?


In 2000 the Commission on Public Service Pensions delivered their report which can be found here:
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf Page 37

The Commission concluded that it was not convinced of the need to fully fund public service pensions.

It concluded that the basic reason for establishing a pension fund in the private sector to provide security of benefits does not apply where the State is the ultimate guarantor of benefits.

In addition, the economic arguments in favour of funding were less than conclusive and it would not address the expected peak in public service pension costs and would limit budgetary flexibility.

The Commission saw definite advantages in the idea of partially funding future public service pension costs to help to smooth the pensions bill and ensure diversification of State expenditure at a time when the economy had near full employment and buoyant revenue.

Are you serious???????

Read your own graph... and read the full line of text by McCarthy not just the part of current expenditure..

Your graph.. read the note - THE PORTION OF THE ANNUAL PAYMENT ABOVE THE CONTRIBUTION LINE REPRESENTS THE EXCESS OF BENEFIT OUTGOINGS OVER CONTRIBUTIONS

then read the McCarthy line again.. and not just the bit on current expenditure...

"The cost implications of public service pensions, both in the shorter and longer terms, are an area of concern to BS. The real annual cost of providing public service pensions is some €7.7bn each year, made up of an annual accrual cost of €5.4bn each year over and above the €2.3bn cash cost of existing pensions in 2009 (on the assumption of an accruing pension cost of, on average, 30% of nominal salary)."
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancen..._1017193.shtml

What part of those facts that even you brought to the table do you continually fail to understand?

(if it helps, you seem to believe that because current expenditure is only 2.3b it will remain that low.. the PS has not been funding its pensions till recently, it has grown considerably, and more and more will start drawing down this pension with less contributing as the PS get smaller.. that is why the problem will get worse)...

And when the penny drops, feel welcome to come back an apologise for another one of your misinformation insults..

George Orwell 1982

Tipp Man wrote: »

Just realised this rubbish, possibly the funniest statment i have seen on here

It's like FAS never happened

There were quite a few screw ups in FAS but it all got found out through FOI. Its more accountable than a private bank. We are only now finding out what was going on in the banks because we got left with a tab of over 35 billion.

George Orwell 1982

Tipp Man wrote: »

I have asked varioius questions on the numbers that the graph shows and you have answered none of them

You were the one who said "there is no place to hide in the Public Service.

Everything has to accounted for and be transparent" (thats your direct quote)

So I asked you how FAS fitted into the public sector with regards to accountability and transparency.

Yet again you failed to answer the question

If you want to know anything about anything that has gone on in FAS you can FOI it.

George Orwell 1982

Tipp Man wrote: »

What does the current budget deficit have to do with the banking crisis??

Look get this into yer heads once and for all, the irish banking crisis is a ONE OFF expense of whatever it is 20-30 bn probably (for better or for worse)

The current budget deficit is an ANNUAL deficit of 20bn plus and NOTHING to do with the banking problems

Can people get it into their heads that government spending is exceeding government income by the amount of the bank bailout every year, yes every year

Now what are the 2 biggest items in government expenditure, you got it the public sector and the social welfare

both need to be slashed

There is a big difference with the deficit spending and the bank bailout.

With the deficit spending the money is going into the Irish economy. It is spent in the Irish economy, supports Irish businesses and much of the money comes back into govt. coffers in tax revenue.

With the bank bailout the money is gone. Wiped out. We have to pay it back with interest. The total cost of the bank bailout could be anywhere up to 50 bn and the interest repayments alone on that will be between 2-3bn per annum.

According to Morgan Kelly it is the bank bailout not the deficit that will sink us.

From Morgan Kelly's most recent IT article:

Because of the economic collapse here, the Government is adding to this debt quite quickly. However, in contrast to its inept handling of the banking crisis, the Government has taken reasonable steps to bring the deficit under control. If all goes to plan we should be looking at a debt of 85 to 90 per cent of GDP by the end of 2012.

This is quite large for a small economy, but it is manageable. Just about. What will sink us, unfortunately but inevitably, are the huge costs of the bank bailout.

We can gain a sobering perspective on the impossible disproportion between the bailout and our economic resources by looking at the US. The government there set aside $700 billion (€557 billion) to buy troubled bank assets, and the final cost to the American taxpayer is about $150 billion. These sound like, and are, astronomical numbers.

But when you translate from the leviathan that is America to the minnow that is Ireland, it would be equivalent to the Irish Government spending €7 billion on Nama, and eventually losing €1.5 billion in the process. Pocket change by our standards.

Instead, our Government has already committed itself to spend €70 billion (€40 billion on the National Asset Management Agency – Nama – and €30 billion on recapitalising banks), or half of the national income. That is 10 times per head of population the amount the US spent to rescue itself from its worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

Having received such a staggering transfusion of taxpayer funds, you might expect that the Irish banks would now be as fit as fleas. Instead, they are still in intensive care, and will require even larger transfusions before they can fend for themselves again.

It is hard to think of any institution since the League of Nations that has become so irrelevant so fast as Nama. Instead of the resurrection of the Irish banking system we were promised, we now have one semi-State body (Nama) buying assets from other semi-states (Anglo) and soon-to-be semi-States (AIB and Bank of Ireland), while funnelling €60 million a year in fees to lawyers, valuers and associated parasites.

What ultimately matters for national solvency, however, is not how much the State invests in its banks, but how much it is likely to lose. It is alright to invest €70 billion, or even €100 billion, to rescue your banking system if you can reasonably expect to get back most of what you spent. So how much are the banks and, thanks to the bank guarantee, you the taxpayer, likely to lose?

Let’s start with the €100 billion of property development loans. We’ll be optimistic and say the loss here will be one-third. Remember, Anglo has already owned up to losing about €25 billion of its €75 billion portfolio, so we have almost reached that third without looking at AIB and Bank of Ireland. I think the final loss will be more than half, but we’ll keep with the third to err on the side of optimism.

Next there are €35 billion of business loans. Over €10 billion of these loans are to hotels and pubs and will likely not be seen again this side of Judgment Day. Meanwhile, one-third of loans to small and medium enterprises are reported already to be in arrears. So, a figure of a 20 per cent loss again seems optimistic.

Finally, we have mortgages of €140 billion, and other personal lending of €20 billion. Current mortgage default figures here are meaningless because, once you agree a reduction of mortgage payments to a level you can afford, Irish banks can still pretend that your loan is performing.
Banks in the US typically get back half of what they loaned when they foreclose, but losses here could be greater because banks, fortunately, find it hard to take away your family home. So Irish banks could easily be looking at mortgage losses of 10 per cent but, to be conservative, we will say five.

So between developers, businesses, and personal loans, Irish banks are on track to lose nearly €50 billion if we are optimistic (and more likely closer to €70 billion), which translates into a bill for the taxpayer of over 30 per cent of GDP. The bank guarantee may have looked like “the cheapest bailout in the world, so far” in September 2008, but it is not looking that way now.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0522/1224270888132.html