Time to Reduce Retired Civil Servants Pensions

NewHillel

Brian Lenihan says that deeper savings are needed under the Croke Park Deal, see here. I believe that, as part of those savings, the time has come to look at the pensions of retired civil servants. To me, the lack of political will in this area is because politicians fear it will impact on them directly. This is simply not good enough. It is entirely unacceptable that well paid civil servants, and former politicians, are on pensions that have been increased well ahead of inflation, due to a deeply flawed benchmarking exercise.
In my view this should be addressed ahead of any other cost-cutting issue. I'm sure that legal difficulties will be quoted as the reason that this cannot be tackled. Maybe Mr McDowell could be reassigned to work on this area??

Laminations

Totally agree, can't see why a clawback or specific tax increase couldn't tackle these pensioners, and I know exactly where I'd start

Nijmegen

To me, the lack of political will in this area is because politicians fear it will impact on them directly.

Welcome to Ireland.

Cuddlesworth

Nijmegen wrote: »

Welcome to Ireland.

Welcome to politics.

thebullkf

NewHillel wrote: »

Brian Lenihan says that deeper savings are needed under the Croke Park Deal, see here. I believe that, as part of those savings, the time has come to look at the pensions of retired civil servants. To me, the lack of political will in this area is because politicians fear it will impact on them directly. This is simply not good enough. It is entirely unacceptable that well paid civil servants, and former politicians, are on pensions that have been increased well ahead of inflation, due to a deeply flawed benchmarking exercise.
In my view this should be addressed ahead of any other cost-cutting issue. I'm sure that legal difficulties will be quoted as the reason that this cannot be tackled. Maybe Mr McDowell could be reassigned to work on this area??

hi hewhillel....ironically enough i disagree


where does it end if introduced? .... weshould look forward,not backward.

look @ the biggest expenditures inthe state-then cutthose first.

1-Dole.
2-medical card/DV card
3-all convicted criminals,incarcerated prisoners should be made pay their way. via their income,possessions,or future dole payments.

this is possibly the best solution-reduce the crime rate and reduce money wasted.

4-generate income by making people who received their driving licence under the amnesty initiative sit an actual driving test.
if they pass first time-test is free,fail and they pay for that and subsequent tests.


and controversial one.....


5-require that dole recipients undergo random drug testing, incl. forsmoking and drinking(though i don't know how the latter would work)
also people on long term dole should be the first cut.

6-Means test the state pension. -eg, gay byrne et al ,
whilst entitled to it- don't need it.

7-Put dole receipients on volunteer duty in their own neighbourhoods
eg litter picking,painting school railings,old folks flats etc.



.....


i have more but i'm sure i'll be lambasted for these.:rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

So what people are arguing is a renaging on contracts, in this case contributary pensions.

Funny how we can't even cosdier renaging on the Anglo Bondholder contracts or the Corrib gas one, isn't it....

Lenny Lovett

thebullkf wrote: »

where does it end if introduced? .... weshould look forward,not backward.

Well, it's already started by cutting the old age state pension and social welfare benefits so it seems logical to work through all these pensions and benefits.

look @ the biggest expenditures inthe state-then cutthose first.

thebullkf wrote: »

1-Dole. Why? You are happy for others to be poor but not a chosen few?
2-medical card/DV card Again. Why? As above

3-all convicted criminals,incarcerated prisoners should be made pay their way. via their income,possessions,or future dole payments. Yeah.. Right

this is possibly the best solution-reduce the crime rate and reduce money wasted.

4-generate income by making people who received their driving licence under the amnesty initiative sit an actual driving test.
if they pass first time-test is free,fail and they pay for that and subsequent tests.


and controversial one.....


5-require that dole recipients undergo random drug testing, incl. forsmoking and drinking(though i don't know how the latter would work)
also people on long term dole should be the first cut. So you think the state should be able to tell people what they can spend their money on? But your Civil Servants Pensions should be untouched? You're gas!

6-Means test the state pension. -eg, gay byrne et al ,
whilst entitled to it- don't need it. Absolutely. And how many Retired Civil Servants would qualify? Remember Gaybo is, technically, a civil servant too given that he gets in excess of €250k a year from RTE still.

7-Put dole receipients on volunteer duty in their own neighbourhoods
eg litter picking,painting school railings,old folks flats etc. I think that's a good idea (and I'm sure many of them would have no problem with that) .

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So what people are arguing is a renaging on contracts, in this case contributary pensions.

Funny how we can't even cosdier renaging on the Anglo Bondholder contracts or the Corrib gas one, isn't it....

I believe the Corrib Gas contract should be ripped up immediately as should The Bondholders (did nobody tell tell them that "The value of their investment could go down as well as up?!") as should the Croke Park Agreement etc etc. Times and circumstances have changed so previous agreements need to be altered too.

senordingdong

thebullkf wrote: »

this is possibly the best solution-reduce the crime rate and reduce money wasted.
:

I doubht it.
Nothing seems to work as a crime detterent.

They should be put to labour building roads.

NewHillel

thebullkf wrote: »

hi hewhillel....ironically enough i disagree

I'm a (little) surprised.
(Bye the way, its NewHillel, I lost my Hillel password when Boards was attacked - hence the "New" bit.)

Back to topic...

This is not schadenfreude, everyone should have a decent pension. The issue here is that one sector of society has been explicity enriched at the expense of the remainder. That sector includes former, and serving politicians - hence the clear agenda of not addressing this issue. Neither is the level of enrichment trivial. The cost of paying unjustly inflated pensions will impact the remainder of us for many years to come.

I'm really surprised at the limited debate on this issue. Maybe it reflects the sheer numbers involved. In any case, we can afford to ignore it no longer, for our childrens case, if for nothing else.

NewHillel

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So what people are arguing is a renaging on contracts, in this case contributary pensions.

Funny how we can't even cosdier renaging on the Anglo Bondholder contracts or the Corrib gas one, isn't it....

It's been well established that the "contribution" made by state workers, doesn't cover their cost. However, the area that really stands out, and should be rolled back without delay, relates to the pension increases relating to the benchmarking exercise. Even if the benchmarking exercise had been a sucess, and it patently wasn't. there was never any justification for applyingthe productivity increases to pensioners who were making no contribution whatsoever to productivity gains.

flutered

hi lenny, the bond holders have been payed off, just check @polotics.ie, the bankers tanker answered a dail question by joan burton.

thebullkf

hi lenny,

multi-quote is easier to read;)

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Well, it's already started by cutting the old age state pension and social welfare benefits so it seems logical to work through all these pensions and benefits.

realy??? logical?... cut one,you have to cut them all. there are many civil servants with small pensions.

Why? You are happy for others to be poor but not a chosen few?

civil servants have contributed to the state. long term dolers haven't.
and won't. unless they get a job.Poverty is not the problem. system is abused.

Again. Why? As above

Again.because the system is abused.

Yeah.. Right

eh...whats wrong with that? all criminals should pay their way.

So you think the state should be able to tell people what they can spend their money on? But your Civil Servants Pensions should be untouched? You're gas!

yes i do. especially if the state is giving them free money.

if dolers didn't smoke they'd have more money for other needs

not wants.

20 a day is a third of a smokers dole money.








Times and circumstances have changed so previous agreements need to be altered too.[/QUOTE]

NewHillel

thebullkf wrote: »

civil servants have contributed to the state.

Many, but by no means all, have contributed. That does not entitle them to a pension that bears no resemblance to what they contributed toward it, that is only tenuously linked to their final salary, and that the country can't afford.

Lenny Lovett wrote:

Times and circumstances have changed so previous agreements need to be altered too.

I agree with you.

thebullkf

We agree at last.

sorry... that wasn't my quote:o

rodento

To be fair they should be cut because there should be parity between the pensions and pay of public/civil servents.

Anymore cuts to public service pay and those who retired resently will be paid more:eek:

unit 1

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So what people are arguing is a renaging on contracts, in this case contributary pensions.

Funny how we can't even cosdier renaging on the Anglo Bondholder contracts or the Corrib gas one, isn't it....

You sir have hit the nail on the head with a very large hammer (I would have said sledge if you included the CP deal)
This is perhaps the first question that should be asked of every politician, every day untill the next GE imo.

NewHillel

thebullkf wrote: »

sorry... that wasn't my quote:o

Fixed the reference.

NewHillel

unit 1 wrote: »

You sir have hit the nail on the head with a very large hammer (I would have said sledge if you included the CP deal)
This is perhaps the first question that should be asked of every politician, every day untill the next GE imo.

Doesn't matter, most will retire with their preserved, index-linked, pensions, and compensation packages for loss of office. They will do anything other than cut pensions, no matter how justified, or necesary.

Boskowski

thebullkf wrote: »

3-all convicted criminals,incarcerated prisoners should be made pay their way. via their income,possessions,or future dole payments.
5-require that dole recipients undergo random drug testing, incl. forsmoking and drinking(though i don't know how the latter would work)
also people on long term dole should be the first cut.

I think they should also carry some sort of sign on their collars...yellow star maybe?

Seriously. Wtf?
Someone on the dole not allowed to have drink or a smoke?

Boskowski

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So what people are arguing is a renaging on contracts, in this case contributary pensions.

Funny how we can't even cosdier renaging on the Anglo Bondholder contracts or the Corrib gas one, isn't it....

It's the same with all these types of issues.

"Ah we can't get after the assets transferred to wives. It's the law."

Well you're the bloody executive/legislative. Make a new bloody law.

If the political will was there we could do all these things.

Geuze

Yes, public service pensions should be cut.

Not just civil service pensions, all retired public servants pensions should be cut.

The State pension should be cut as a last resort, after public service pensions are cut first.

Public sector workers took 2 pay cuts, but their retired colleagues did not.

Their pensions were linked to the salary scales on the way up, but the pensions were not cut when the pay scales were. Unfair.

A typical retired teacher has a pension of 700pw. They can afford a 10% cut.

Geuze

Bear in mind that a retired couple get:

No tax if pension less than 769pw

Medical card, if pension under 1400pw

Income levy and health levy = NIL, if one spouse over 70

Free travel

Household Benefit Package, automatically if one spouse over 70.


So retired public pensioners can take a cut in their pensions. Most of them would probably agree.

NewHillel

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, public service pensions should be cut.

Not just civil service pensions, all retired public servants pensions should be cut.

The State pension should be cut as a last resort, after public service pensions are cut first.

Public sector workers took 2 pay cuts, but their retired colleagues did not.

Their pensions were linked to the salary scales on the way up, but the pensions were not cut when the pay scales were. Unfair.

A typical retired teacher has a pension of 700pw. They can afford a 10% cut.

Yes, I was unclear - I absolutely meant all Public Servants.

thebullkf

Geuze wrote: »

Bear in mind that a retired couple get:

No tax if pension less than 769pw

Medical card, if pension under 1400pw

Income levy and health levy = NIL, if one spouse over 70

Free travel

Household Benefit Package, automatically if one spouse over 70.


So retired public pensioners can take a cut in their pensions. Most of them would probably agree.

its the reward of having worked for 50 years ffs.

give it over. its the grass is always greener mentality.

all retired public servants pensions should be cut.

The State pension should be cut as a last resort, after public service pensions are cut first.

Public sector workers took 2 pay cuts, but their retired colleagues did not.

Their pensions were linked to the salary scales on the way up, but the pensions were not cut when the pay scales were. Unfair.

A typical retired teacher has a pension of 700pw. They can afford a 10% cut.

cos they're fookin retired!!!!



thats the crux of your arguement.....jealousy, plain and simple. at least admit it.

the reason pensions are so good is because the initial pay is so bad.


the average labourer was earning 45k a year 3 years ago.. a poxy laboure!!!

what does a postman get?....a teacher??? both start @ 20k+ a year.


3 years ago, they were laughed @.


today they're begrudged.

typical irish. we shite on our own. we always have,we always will.

NewHillel

thebullkf wrote: »

its the reward of having worked for 50 years ffs.

Its the reward of a deepy unfair, unjustifiable and unaffordable Benchmarking Agreement which, along with Nama, has brought us to the edge of ruin. (Thats those of us still luckly to have jobs, many others are ruined already.)

Its the rest of us that are being $hat upon!

thebullkf

NewHillel wrote: »

Its the reward of a deepy unfair, unjustifiable and unaffordable Benchmarking Agreement which, along with Nama, has brought us to the edge of ruin. (Thats those of us still luckly to have jobs, many others are ruined already.)

Its the rest of us that are being $hat upon!

how is it ordinary folks fault??


i'm not saying the gaybo's,AG's,shouldn't pay their way,quite the opposite.


but to suggest that a postman who worked all his life outdoors,should be penalised is just scandalous.

and i think you know it. its not the workers that got us into this mess.

its the fukken scroungers,speculators,liars,thieves who have.
not the man on the street.

any lazy cnut that was on the dole during the boom should be cut.

these little scrotes clogging up our courst/garda's time- we need to be stricter,we also need to hit the parents-hard.

maybe it'll influence potential future parents attitudes.


rant over:mad:

Fighting Irish

thebullkf wrote: »

hi hewhillel....ironically enough i disagree


where does it end if introduced? .... weshould look forward,not backward.

look @ the biggest expenditures inthe state-then cutthose first.

1-Dole.
2-medical card/DV card
3-all convicted criminals,incarcerated prisoners should be made pay their way. via their income,possessions,or future dole payments.

this is possibly the best solution-reduce the crime rate and reduce money wasted.

4-generate income by making people who received their driving licence under the amnesty initiative sit an actual driving test.
if they pass first time-test is free,fail and they pay for that and subsequent tests.


and controversial one.....


5-require that dole recipients undergo random drug testing, incl. forsmoking and drinking(though i don't know how the latter would work)
also people on long term dole should be the first cut.

6-Means test the state pension. -eg, gay byrne et al ,
whilst entitled to it- don't need it.

7-Put dole receipients on volunteer duty in their own neighbourhoods
eg litter picking,painting school railings,old folks flats etc.



.....


i have more but i'm sure i'll be lambasted for these.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

thebullkf

Fighting Irish wrote: »

:rolleyes:

excellent contribution.
it seems you are not alone with these symbols:rolleyes::rolleyes:









:rolleyes::o:(:mad::cool::P:pac::rolleyes:

NewHillel

thebullkf wrote: »

how is it ordinary folks fault??

Never suggested it was.

Are you suggesting that a retired Public Servant on a yearly pension of €50k and upwards is "ordinary folk"?
Are you suggesting that their living standards should be enhanced, given that the cost of living has decreased, while the rest of the country goes down the swanney?
(All because TD's and Ministers don't want their pensions to be cut.)

P.S. Recent research indicates that, contrary to long-held beliefs, venting is counter productive. I know, I know, we've all done it.

thebullkf

NewHillel wrote: »

Never suggested it was.

but you did. by inferring that all should be cut.

Are you suggesting that a retired Public Servant on a yearly pension of €50k and upwards is "ordinary folk"?

no. where'd you get that figure?.....

Are you suggesting that their living standards should be enhanced,

how would it be enhanced.... sure were'nt they on sh1t money for long enough?

(All because TD's and Ministers don't want their pensions to be cut.)

i gree that any substantial pension should be cut- ie over 75k. as this would indicate that their final salary prior to retiring (depending on service) would've been 100k plus.

example: afaik years ago if you had 35yrs+ plus service you were entitled to a MAXIMUM 80% of your final salary as pension.

which afaik is taxed??

so if a guy retires after 35 years service and his salary is 40k his pension is 32k.... before tax.


theres fukkers on the dole gettin that with their rent supplement,childrens allowance,socialising money,free medical,free transport. with no major overhead bils like a mortgage.

peopl forget that there are cleaners,porters,clerks, who never rise in rank and thus money within the civil service... should their pension be cut???

P.S. Recent research indicates that, contrary to long-held beliefs, venting is counter productive. I know, I know, we've all done it.

NewHillel

thebullkf wrote: »

how would it be enhanced.... sure were'nt they on sh1t money for long enough?

Because we've had deflation in the economy over the last two years, meaning that the value of pensions is now greater.

thebullkf wrote: »

i gree that any substantial pension should be cut- ie over 75k. as this would indicate that their final salary prior to retiring (depending on service) would've been 100k plus.

example: afaik years ago if you had 35yrs+ plus service you were entitled to a MAXIMUM 80% of your final salary as pension.

which afaik is taxed??

so if a guy retires after 35 years service and his salary is 40k his pension is 32k.... before tax.

Typically, a Public Servant gets 40/80ths of his final salary as a pension, per year of service. (Plus a tax free lump sum of 60/80ths per year of service.)

A Public Servant with 40 years service would have been earning €150k pa at retirement to get a pension of €75k. If he/she had less than 40 years service the final salary would have been greater.

Ah but, it doesn't stop there. That pension is then linked to the salary of serving grades - any increase they get, even if it is for taking on additional responsibilities, retraining, whatever, is also given to pensioners. This means that some Public Sector pensioners, including Politicians, are receiving more in their pensions than their salary when working.

We are being ripped off. Simple as...

thebullkf

NewHillel wrote: »

Because we've had deflation in the economy over the last two years, meaning that the value of pensions is now greater.

so. so what. if the opposite were true should they be subsidised?...methinks not.

Typically, a Public Servant gets 40/80ths of his final salary as a pension, per year of service. (Plus a tax free lump sum of 60/80ths per year of service.)

thats wrong.

A Public Servant with 40 years service would have been earning €150k pa at retirement to get a pension of €75k. If he/she had less than 40 years service the final salary would have been greater.

this ^^ does not compute.

Ah but, it doesn't stop there. That pension is then linked to the salary of serving grades - any increase they get, even if it is for taking on additional responsibilities, retraining, whatever, is also given to pensioners. This means that some Public Sector pensioners, including Politicians, are receiving more in their pensions than their salary when working.

We are being ripped off. Simple as...

also not copletely true.pensions are index linked. all pensions are.plus CS contribute to their own pensions also.
same as other workers.
hell my last boss contributed 5% of my wages to my pension...@ his expense.
whilst i contributed 10%.

its all jealousy @ the end of the day.

NewHillel

thebullkf wrote: »

thats wrong.

You're right, some Public Servants do not need forty years service to retire on half pay.

thebullkf wrote: »

this ^^ does not compute.

Methinks you need a new computer.

thebullkf wrote: »

also not copletely true.pensions are index linked. all pensions are.plus CS contribute to their own pensions also.
same as other workers.
hell my last boss contributed 5% of my wages to my pension...@ his expense.
whilst i contributed 10%..

The contribution made by CS towards the cost of their pension, even after the minor adjustment, falls well short of what is required. In no way does it compare with the private sector.

thebullkf wrote: »

its all jealousy @ the end of the day.

It all about fairness and equity in society. The impact of the downturn is being unfairly spread accross society with the public sector, and politicians, being substantially protected.

thebullkf

NewHillel wrote: »

You're right, some Public Servants do not need forty years service to retire on half pay.

Methinks you need a new computer.

your initial quote made no sense;)

The contribution made by CS towards the cost of their pension, even after the minor adjustment, falls well short of what is required. In no way does it compare with the private sector.

what is requiredfor what? CS contribute to their own pension.
not all CS are on big money.
in fact i would say the majority are on less than 35k a year.

(politicians excluded-they're the ones bumping up the average figures.)

It all about fairness and equity in society. The impact of the downturn is being unfairly spread accross society with the public sector, and politicians, being substantially protected.

i agree with some of your sentiment,but its still down to jealousy and begrudgery.

fat needs to be trimmed, i agree.

cyclopath2001

NewHillel wrote: »

The contribution made by CS towards the cost of their pension, even after the minor adjustment, falls well short of what is required. In no way does it compare with the private sector.

The bulk of private sector pensions are made up of the state contributory pension. Are you arguing that people who receive that have actually paid the full cost of this?

rodento

How can they be indexed linked if they don't go down when civil/public service pay goes down:rolleyes:

NewHillel

rodento wrote: »

How can they be indexed linked if they don't go down when civil/public service pay goes down:rolleyes:

Because these are custom contracts for Public Servants and Politicians!!!
If there was any semblance of fairness, pensions would be tracking the changes in the wider economy. Instead, its all upside.

I don't think existing pensioners should be cut, except to cut the index-link stuff. Just give them a level pension.
I think for anyone who is retiring in the next say 5-10 years should be left in DB with no future pension increases.
Everyone else should have the total contributions stuck in a DC scheme. DB is too expensive for them to be running particularly with increases

NewHillel

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't think existing pensioners should be cut, except to cut the index-link stuff. Just give them a level pension.
I think for anyone who is retiring in the next say 5-10 years should be left in DB with no future pension increases.
Everyone else should have the total contributions stuck in a DC scheme. DB is too expensive for them to be running particularly with increases

It's not the index linking that the biggest issue, expensive and all as that was. The bigger issue is the inflated cost of retired pensioners pensions as a result of applying benchmarking increases to them.

gizmo555

thebullkf wrote: »

also not copletely true.pensions are index linked. all pensions are.plus CS contribute to their own pensions also.
same as other workers.

That's incorrect. For any defined contribution pension plan, taking the option to have pension payments indexed to inflation, as opposed to just taking a flat rate pension which will never increase as time passes, will substantially reduce pension income. Also, even where the indexing option is taken, increases for inflation are often capped at about 5% p.a. - if inflation is greater than that, it's just tough luck. As for indexing to the rate of your former salary, this is quite simply unobtainable from any private sector pension provider.

The indexing of civil and public service pensions, whether to inflation or the salary in the grade the pensioner retired from, is a huge benefit which would be extremely costly to fund for a private sector retiree.

NewHillel

gizmo555 wrote: »

The indexing of civil and public service pensions, whether to inflation or the salary in the grade the pensioner retired from, is a huge benefit which would be extremely costly to fund for a private sector retiree.

The cost is such that it is simply not affordable.

Anyway, the good news is that sanity appears to be breaking out, at last.
Mr Lenihan is now targeting existing public sector pensioners who have up until now remained unscathed from any cut.

NewHillel

NewHillel wrote: »

It's not the index linking that the biggest issue, expensive and all as that was. The bigger issue is the inflated cost of retired pensioners pensions as a result of applying benchmarking increases to them.

Sorry yes I meant any kind of increases at all

elland white

hello there, i served for 21 years in the defence forces and
am in receipt of a pension, i can assure people here that my pension and those of my friends who left as well is no way near the 700 euro a week ive seen quoted for a retired teacher, in fact i work a 48 hour week, just to make ends meet with my pension, i dont have my mortgage paid off and a lot of disposable income like ive seen mention in todays sunday indo, if my pension is cut, i would have trouble paying my mortgage and might even lose my house, ive 3 kids to support , us lower paid public servants are not all on the gravy train.

end of rant

good luck to ALL in the next budget

thebullkf

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's incorrect. For any defined contribution pension plan, taking the option to have pension payments indexed to inflation, as opposed to just taking a flat rate pension which will never increase as time passes, will substantially reduce pension income. Also, even where the indexing option is taken, increases for inflation are often capped at about 5% p.a. - if inflation is greater than that, it's just tough luck. As for indexing to the rate of your former salary, this is quite simply unobtainable from any private sector pension provider.

The indexing of civil and public service pensions, whether to inflation or the salary in the grade the pensioner retired from, is a huge benefit which would be extremely costly to fund for a private sector retiree.

says you.

gizmo555

thebullkf wrote: »

As for indexing to the rate of your former salary, this is quite simply unobtainable from any private sector pension provider.

says you.

Well, if you know different, by all means share the information with us. The government can do this because it pays pensions out of current funding. How would a private sector pensions provider forecast, and make funding provision for, the rates of pay for any given trade or profession decades into the future?

FINGAL FAN

The bulk of Civil Servants are on wages of 30k to 40k a year . With 40 years work behind them they would therefore qualify for pensions between 15k and 20k a year and some on hear are looking for this to be reduced. Get real and stop listening to the guff from government cheerleaders in the media . The non contributary pension is approx 10k.

NewHillel

FINGAL FAN wrote: »

The bulk of Civil Servants are on wages of 30k to 40k a year . With 40 years work behind them they would therefore qualify for pensions between 15k and 20k a year and some on hear are looking for this to be reduced. Get real and stop listening to the guff from government cheerleaders in the media . The non contributary pension is approx 10k.

Quite a statement. Where's your reference?

gizmo555

FINGAL FAN wrote: »

The bulk of Civil Servants are on wages of 30k to 40k a year.

That assertion is certainly not borne out by these figures. Also, people at retirement would in general tend to be at the the top of the salary scale for whatever post they are in, which would in turn tend to mean they would be on a higher than average rate for that post.


Average wages by sector, 1998-2009

Riskymove

gizmo555 wrote: »

That assertion is certainly not borne out by these figures. Also, people at retirement would in general tend to be at the the top of the salary scale for whatever post they are in, which would in turn tend to mean they would be on a higher than average rate for that post.

you are putting forward averages in this case which means little

one third of the PS earn less than 40k and two thirds less than 60k

the majority of the CS are at the lower grades...many retire at those grades...many retire without full service

for example the average PS wage bandied about here of €50k is higher than the highest point for a number of grades

there have already been a number of changes which will reduce pension rates further in the future

gizmo555

Riskymove wrote: »

you are putting forward averages in this case which means little

one third of the PS earn less than 40k and two thirds less than 60k

You are throwing out figures without any source or reference to back them up, which means nothing at all. Even if they are correct, they would mean that two thirds of PS workers are paid at least 11% more than the average for all sectors and industries, which in Q2 2010 was just under €36,000, according to the CSO, with one third of all PS workers paid at least 67% more than this.

Riskymove wrote: »

the majority of the CS are at the lower grades...many retire at those grades...many retire without full service

Your point being? Or do you think if you retire from a private sector job without full service you get a full pension?

Riskymove

gizmo555 wrote: »

Your point being?

whats with the hostility?

my point is that average wage rates mean little compared to trying to determine average pension rates

someone may be earning 50k on retirement but may not get full pension

retirements also take place on an ongoing basis rather than in one snapshot of time so are harder to analyse through cso wage stats