Martin to resign teaching position

steddyeddy

the unions also allow and ensure that the haed libarian in ucd gets paid over 100k.

Freddie59

k_mac wrote: »

Yep. I'll be rolling in it in 30 years. Take that recession.

Good luck to you. You're using a corrupt system. Not your fault. But can you honestly produce an argument as to why you (or others) should be entitled to a gratuity as well as a pension?

Is the lump sum taxed?

An €100k lump sum is like a lotto win to most people

MagicSean

Freddie59 wrote: »

Good luck to you. You're using a corrupt system. Not your fault. But can you honestly produce an argument as to why you (or others) should be entitled to a gratuity as well as a pension?

I knew nothing about the pension when I joined and still don't really. I have no idea what lump sum i will receive nor do I know how much of a pension I will get. What I do know is that I have 4 mandatory pension deductions from my pay cheque every week in addition to prsi so I can only assume that will cover a large part of my future payments. I also know that the skills and training and knowledge I develop in my job will not be very much use in any other career should I wish to take up employment after I retire so I expect I am compensated for this in some way with the lump sum. Also, after 30 years of dealing with the worst of society I now look forward to a bonus as something I've earned. I can only speak for myself and my profession and not for the rest of the public sector though.

rainbowtrout

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

It means that the OAP is deducted from your pension or is given without reference to the pension.

I would be fairly certain that PS pensions are co-ordinated.. ie when a person qualifies for the OAP, the corresponding award is deducted from the persons pension

I'm not sure to be quite honest. It's 30 years away for me. As far as I'm aware, if I do the forty years and say have a retiring pension of 30k, then that's it. No extra payments added on or deducted.

FlutterinBantam

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I'm not sure to be quite honest. It's 30 years away for me. As far as I'm aware, if I do the forty years and say have a retiring pension of 30k, then that's it. No extra payments added on or deducted.

Check it out.

it will be important in 2041.

rainbowtrout

salonfire wrote: »

Is the lump sum taxed?

An €100k lump sum is like a lotto win to most people

After a certain amount it is. People in the private sector can pay into pensions too that pay out a lump sum on retirement and are allowed take a tax free lump sum.

Also not all teachers will get a six figure lump sum on retirement, so before you start spouting figures without any basis, do some research.

FlutterinBantam

rainbowtrout wrote: »

After a certain amount it is. People in the private sector can pay into pensions too that pay out a lump sum on retirement and are allowed take a tax free lump sum.

Also not all teachers will get a six figure lump sum on retirement, so before you start spouting figures without any basis, do some research.

Guy was just asking man

rainbowtrout

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Check it out.

it will be important in 2041.

I think there's a difference between people in PS before and after 1995. Those in PS before 1995 pay Class D PRSI ( I don't know what that is, but from what I understand it's a lot less). Those after 1995, like me pay Class A PRSI which is full whack.

I think pre 95 don't get the full pension including OAP because they don't pay full PRSI, but post 95 do. I think that might be what you are referring to.

EDIT: I just looked it up out of curiosity. Class D don't get OAP, Class A do. So the Pre 95 retirees will have lower pensions that don't include OAP, Class A will include OAP as I outlined earlier.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PRSI/Pages/prsiclasses.aspx

rainbowtrout

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Guy was just asking man

Ya point taken, but normally comments like that descend into 'everyone gets 100K on retirement and were only teaching 5 years' type generalisations.

littlehedgehog

I receive a gratuity along with my private sector pension, that I pay into.
Why shouldn't the public sector get a gratuity along with their public sector pension, that they pay into?

ETA - Was reading this thread ages ago, and left it open - lots of posts since Freddie "Good luck to you. You're using a corrupt system. Not your fault. But can you honestly produce an argument as to why you (or others) should be entitled to a gratuity as well as a pension?"!!

FlutterinBantam

Jean wrote: »

I receive a gratuity along with my private sector pension, that I pay into.
Why shouldn't the public sector get a gratuity along with their public sector pension, that they pay into?

I doubt if your pvt sector pension is as generous as theirs.

That's why.

rainbowtrout

rainbowtrout wrote: »

After a certain amount it is. People in the private sector can pay into pensions too that pay out a lump sum on retirement and are allowed take a tax free lump sum.

Also not all teachers will get a six figure lump sum on retirement, so before you start spouting figures without any basis, do some research.

Yeah, I know that not all teachers get that. Its depends on length of service, etc (see, I read your earlier posts )


The thing about private sector pensions is that they can plummet in value, after paying thousands into it over the years, someone can come out with less than was paid in.


Btw, thanks for taking the time posting the info.

littlehedgehog

Considering how much of a percentage of their salary is being taken to pay into the pension, on a compulsory basis, I think it's pretty fair. Not that I have the numbers to hand, but I know my parents are paying quite a large percentage of their salary into the pension (through pension levy, and contributions), while I pay 3% - or I can pay nada, if I choose.

rainbowtrout

salonfire wrote: »

Yeah, I know that not all teachers get that. Its depends on length of service, etc (see, I read your earlier posts )


The thing about private sector pensions is that they can plummet in value, after paying thousands into it over the years, someone can come out with less than was paid in.


Btw, thanks for taking the time posting the info.

Yes, that part doesn't seem fair at all.

I have no problem posting factual information. I've read enough rubbish about PS and pensions here and elsewhere in the last 2-3 years to last me a lifetime, and much of it from PS workers who don't know their own entitlements and just spout nonsense making it sound even worse.

I think headlines such as the one about Enda Kenny and his 100k gratuity in the last few days do no favours either as much of the time reports of that nature often suggest that all teachers get this type of payment on retirement when it's not the case.

FlutterinBantam

Jean wrote: »

Considering how much of a percentage of their salary is being taken to pay into the pension, on a compulsory basis, I think it's pretty fair. Not that I have the numbers to hand, but I know my parents are paying quite a large percentage of their salary into the pension (through pension levy, and contributions), while I pay 3% - or I can pay nada, if I choose.

You may have a very good point there, I can't see it though.

Jean

Jean wrote: »

Considering how much of a percentage of their salary is being taken to pay into the pension, on a compulsory basis, I think it's pretty fair. Not that I have the numbers to hand, but I know my parents are paying quite a large percentage of their salary into the pension (through pension levy, and contributions), while I pay 3% - or I can pay nada, if I choose.

True, also many companies also contribute towards private pensions.

So someone paying 3%, matched by the company, actually has 6% paid in

rainbowtrout

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You may have a very good point there, I can't see it though.

Well perhaps the point is that all PS workers have to pay pension contributions from day one, so if you start in PS early you're paying contributions for 40 years. Not everyone pays into private pensions as early so when they do start paying into them they have to pay in more to get a similar return.

For post 95 workers, taking OAP out of the equation, as they would get it once they are making contributions from any working job, it's a long time contributing to get the balance of the pension.

Pension is 6.5% of income and pension levy is about 7% (for me anyway). Pension levy deductions are costing more than pension contribution on my pay slip. So currently for most PS workers, pension contribution has effectively doubled but the payout at the other end will still be the same so the pension is costing double what it used to cost.

Freddie59

Jean wrote: »

I receive a gratuity along with my private sector pension, that I pay into.
Why shouldn't the public sector get a gratuity along with their public sector pension, that they pay into?

Not all private sector pensions pay a gratuity. Why SHOULD the public sector be guaranteed one? Is it really right that Gardai and teachers are able to retire years before others? Funded by the taxpayer?

Freddie59

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Well perhaps the point is that all PS workers have to pay pension contributions from day one, so if you start in PS early you're paying contributions for 40 years. Not everyone pays into private pensions as early so when they do start paying into them they have to pay in more to get a similar return.

Not so - I joined our company pension plan at 21 (covered for benefits) and have been paying into it sice I was 25 - 30 years in total.

rainbowtrout

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not all private sector pensions pay a gratuity. Why SHOULD the public sector be guaranteed one? Is it really right that Gardai and teachers are able to retire years before others? Funded by the taxpayer?

That is the way the scheme is set up. It includes a gratuity. Since 2004 any teacher entering the profession cannot retire until 65. Not all teachers will have served full service at 60, so will not be retiring until after that. PS workers are also taxpayers. I notice quite a chunk of my wages goes on PAYE, PRSI, USC, Pension and Pension Levy every fortnight.

Why do you begrudge those that have worked for 40 years in a job the chance of retiring in their early 60s? If you have children do you want a teacher teaching your kids who has been in the classroom for nearly 45 years and is still there because you don't want them to go any earlier? Some private sector workers retire before 65 too.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not so - I joined our company pension plan at 21 (covered for benefits) and have been paying into it sice I was 25 - 30 years in total.

I did say not everyone in the private sector. I am well aware that some people join pension plans in their early 20s but not everyone does and I think it's becoming more prevalent with people staying in college longer and doing a bit of travelling and then clearing debts and establishing a career for themselves before they think of joining a pension scheme in the private sector, so while I don't have hard and fast evidence to support that opinion, I could say for sure that none of my friends bar one in private sector employment would have been in a pension scheme before the age of 30 for a variety of those reasons. And the one that joined that scheme joined at 26 or 27 and has since left that job to go travelling so that's the end of the pension contributions there for the forseeable future.

However as I entered a teacher training course at 17 and started teaching at 22, I have quite a number of friends who are teachers and who have had no choice but to contribute to a pension since we started teaching upon leaving college.

Freddie59

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Why do you begrudge those that have worked for 40 years in a job the chance of retiring in their early 60s? If you have children do you want a teacher teaching your kids who has been in the classroom for nearly 45 years and is still there because you don't want them to go any earlier? Some private sector workers retire before 65 too..

If there is a retirement age it should be ACROSS the board. It is discriminatory otherwise. Much was made of the Golden Circle. It appears one is in existence regarding PS workers pensions, particularly Teachers and Gardai. Why should a Garda be able to retire on a pension at 48, with the rest of us footing the bill?

rainbowtrout wrote: »

However as I entered a teacher training course at 17 and started teaching at 22, I have quite a number of friends who are teachers and who have had no choice but to contribute to a pension since we started teaching upon leaving college.

Nobody put a gun to your head. You knew the rules.

rainbowtrout

Freddie59 wrote: »

If there is a retirement age it should be ACROSS the board. It is discriminatory otherwise. Much was made of the Golden Circle. It appears one is in existence regarding PS workers pensions, particularly Teachers and Gardai. Why should a Garda be able to retire on a pension at 48, with the rest of us footing the bill?

The nature of some jobs are different than others. In some types of work it's not feasible or ideal for a person to continue working until they reach 65. I've also pointed out that PS workers pay various contributions such as Pension, Pension Levy, PRSI but you are conveniently ignoring that to suit your own agenda.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Nobody put a gun to your head. You knew the rules.

Your turning my point into a whinge which it clearly was not. I'm not complaining about paying into a pension since I started work. It's been deducted from my pay since day one so it's not like I had it to begin with and now I don't and I have to get used to it.

I didn't get into teaching because of the pension, just like most people don't enter into their careers because of the pension. I chose to do teaching because I wanted to teach.

I also didn't know anything about pensions when I put teaching down on my CAO form. Surprisingly if you go and visit the Leaving Cert forum that's not what 17-18 year old LC students are worrying about. They ask about the content of degree courses, whether the points are likely to go up or down and possible job prospects. They're not asking about pensions and whether contributions are compulsory or not. I was no different. I think you'll find lots of college graduates don't know a lot about pensions when they are starting their first job and they only learn the ins and outs of the pension world after that. So please, stop trying to twist my words and make out like I took the job having researched the pension beforehand.

Freddie59

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The nature of some jobs are different than others. In some types of work it's not feasible or ideal for a person to continue working until they reach 65. I've also pointed out that PS workers pay various contributions such as Pension, Pension Levy, PRSI but you are conveniently ignoring that to suit your own agenda..

Not really. So do private sector workers. And they're not guaranteed.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Your turning my point into a whinge which it clearly was not. I'm not complaining about paying into a pension since I started work. It's been deducted from my pay since day one so it's not like I had it to begin with and now I don't and I have to get used to it.

I didn't get into teaching because of the pension, just like most people don't enter into their careers because of the pension. I chose to do teaching because I wanted to teach.

I also didn't know anything about pensions when I put teaching down on my CAO form. Surprisingly if you go and visit the Leaving Cert forum that's not what 17-18 year old LC students are worrying about. They ask about the content of degree courses, whether the points are likely to go up or down and possible job prospects. They're not asking about pensions and whether contributions are compulsory or not. I was no different. I think you'll find lots of college graduates don't know a lot about pensions when they are starting their first job and they only learn the ins and outs of the pension world after that. So please, stop trying to twist my words and make out like I took the job having researched the pension beforehand.

Who's twisting your words. You have the best of both worlds.

A job guaranteed for life - irrespective of how you (or others perform).

A biased pension unavailable to Private Sector workers.

What's to twist?

FlutterinBantam

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The nature of some jobs are different than others. In some types of work it's not feasible or ideal for a person to continue working until they reach 65. I've also pointed out that PS workers pay various contributions such as Pension, Pension Levy, PRSI but you are conveniently ignoring that to suit your own agenda.



Your turning my point into a whinge which it clearly was not. I'm not complaining about paying into a pension since I started work. It's been deducted from my pay since day one so it's not like I had it to begin with and now I don't and I have to get used to it.

I didn't get into teaching because of the pension, just like most people don't enter into their careers because of the pension. I chose to do teaching because I wanted to teach.

I also didn't know anything about pensions when I put teaching down on my CAO form. Surprisingly if you go and visit the Leaving Cert forum that's not what 17-18 year old LC students are worrying about. They ask about the content of degree courses, whether the points are likely to go up or down and possible job prospects. They're not asking about pensions and whether contributions are compulsory or not. I was no different. I think you'll find lots of college graduates don't know a lot about pensions when they are starting their first job and they only learn the ins and outs of the pension world after that. So please, stop trying to twist my words and make out like I took the job having researched the pension beforehand.

Excellent treatise, however,and nothing personal intended here, all this has driven up a realisation of the favorable pension and employment privileges enjoyed by the public sector by those who foot the bil

John Q and Mary J Taxpayer.

As public service pensions are paid not from and investment fund but from day-to-day income, it would appear that the general public who benefit from a defined contribution scheme, may see a reaming of their taxes to engorge the already bloated PS expense bill.



Something has to go.

bmarley

This injustices our politicians are getting away with is unreal, they make the rules to suit themselves. There should be no such thing as career breaks of this length. If one was to return to their previous employment after this length of time would they not have to re-train - the curriculum itself has changed so much over the last few years. How many politicians in the county are on career breaks?

Lumen

Look, if you want a tasty pension join the public sector. Defined benefits schemes are not exactly a state secret.

Pursuing a career in the private sector and then moaning about other people's better terms of employment when recession hits is retarded.

By the same token, public sector workers are employed by the state, and the state is in administration with the IMF, so they're going to have to take a hit just like those in the private sector whose employers run into trouble. You can't have it both ways.

Basically, whingers should stop whinging. And anyone who strikes, whichever sector they're in, deserves a kick in the face.

Freddie59

Lumen wrote: »

Look, if you want a tasty pension join the public sector. Defined benefits schemes are not exactly a state secret.

Pursuing a career in the private sector and then moaning about other people's better terms of employment when recession hits is retarded.

By the same token, public sector workers are employed by the state, and the state is in administration with the IMF, so they're going to have to take a hit just like those in the private sector whose employers run into trouble. You can't have it both ways.

Basically, whingers should stop whinging. And anyone who strikes, whichever sector they're in, deserves a kick in the face.

Hang on a minute! If a business in the private sector is in difficulties (those fcuking banks excluded) the following scenarois come into play:

* Wage Reductions

* Staff reductions (redundancies).

* Closure.

* Loss of pension.

Ireland, Inc is insolvent. We're spending more money than we raise in taxes. While at the same time honouring antiquated Public Sector pension agreements, (and by God didn't Martin and Kenny really highlight this in the past two days) which haemorrhage money from the state.

Of course people are whinging, as you put it. I call it raising legitimate concerns. In the private sector numbers would be slashed, short time, etc. But the Golden Circle comes into play and all of the entitlements are protected - even though we don't have the money to pay them!!!!!

Health, Education, and SW are grosssly ineffective and badly run in this country, and someone needs to grab the bull by the horns. And quickly.

Sibylla

It's ridiculous that he's held onto his teaching position for the past twenty years, With the formation of the shambolic HSE and ruining the state's finances he obviously didn't have much time for lesson plans :rolleyes: I can't understand why the teacher will lose their job, surely whatever classes they were taking still need to be taught?

rainbowtrout

Sibylla wrote: »

It's ridiculous that he's held onto his teaching position for the past twenty years, With the formation of the shambolic HSE and ruining the state's finances he obviously didn't have much time for lesson plans :rolleyes: I can't understand why the teacher will lose their job, surely whatever classes they were taking still need to be taught?

If the school is over quota for teachers, one of the non permanent teachers will get the boot. As his replacement is a sub teacher, this teacher's job is a likely option. Classes still have to be taught, but what happens is some smaller classes get merged, or some subjects are no longer offered, particularly at senior cycle.

Eg. Fifth year students are offered a group of four subjects to pick one , say Geography, Physics, Woodwork, Home Economics. There are 60 fifth years, so roughly 15 will end up in each class. The school loses a teacher and physics was always small anyway with no more than 12 taking it up on average. Result: physics is scrapped and the 12 students who would have taken it have to choose one of the other 3 subjects on offer.

It's a fairly normal scenario.