Should there be a maximum state pension?

Cork boy 55

Should there be a cap or maximum state pension????



Can it be made backward compatible and how?
What should the cap be set at I would argue somewhere in the region of 50,000 to 100,000, 65,000 seems a good figure???
Who much would this save?
Who many people are currently getting more than this theoretical cap?
Anyone got facts and figures ?
what's the downside?

Seems a fair way to me to cut cost without affecting society too much
Discuss?

PS
This is not an attack on public sector workers or pensions merely the excessive pensions that are being paid out now to top-end public sector workers

Head The Wall

I reckon PS pensions should only have been increased with inflation and not relative to the increased salary levels we have in the PS nowadays.

It's ridiculous to think that retired PS people got pension increases due to the increased salary rates from benchmarking. What pray tell did they do to deserve this?

fliball123

Head The Wall wrote: »

I reckon PS pensions should only have been increased with inflation and not relative to the increased salary levels we have in the PS nowadays.

It's ridiculous to think that retired PS people got pension increases due to the increased salary rates from benchmarking. What pray tell did they do to deserve this?

Anyone in the PS earning over say 60k should be hit with a 75% tax...So anything over that we get 3/4s back 60k + a year is more than enough

woodoo

Yes absolute max of 80K

WalterMitty

woodoo wrote: »

Yes absolute max of 80K

80k! No one needs 80k a year during their retirement years when their cost of living is much much lower . max of 40k would be more appropriate and save multiples more than having a 80k cap . Those currently "entitled" to an 80k pension would have been earning over a hubdred thousand in today's terms and would have been well able to provide their own private pension for any amount over 40k if they so desire.
Even with the pension levy of last few years vast majority of public pensioners pay only a fraction of the true cost of their pension. Public pensions were only intended to help someone avoid poverty and poor health in their old age and give them ability to live a good but not extravagent life.

Now these pensions are so good that legions of higher paid public servants can even in retirement get more disposable cash than a working couple each on average wage. I think lower paid public servants do have legimate gripes over what they get back versus what they pay in but the likes of consultants, judges and others would have to be paying in multiples of what they currently are ,even after pension levy, to get the pension they are, as of now, "entitled to".

Bannasidhe

I'm sure the CSO have a figure for average industrial wage - that should be the cap for pensions.

WalterMitty

fliball123 wrote: »

Anyone in the PS earning over say 60k should be hit with a 75% tax...So anything over that we get 3/4s back 60k + a year is more than enough

Are you mad? That would mean politicians would have their pay cut to normal european levels ! and they couldnt be having that (with exception of SF and Joe Higgins' crowd). We had Fine Gael's Phil Hogan telling us two years ago that he could take no more cuts when it was proposed that his salary would be cut from 110,000euro to maybe 100,000 at the time. And that is on top of huge expenses that mean he could buy a second property in dublin to live at while attending the Dail and not have to spend a penny of his own on petrol,food etc etc.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fine-gael-deputy-on-e110000-cant-take-wage-cut-1646893.html
This shower are as self serving and arrogant as last lot. Even the "socialist" Gilmore benefiting from his wife getting a large 6 figure sum for a smal bit of land bought to build a school. Vast majority of people in Irish politics are in it for themselves either in terms of the pay, perks and business connections, power , keeping the family tradition up etc.

Bannasidhe

Feck it - let's charge with treason - (acting against the best interests of the state) - everyone who won't accept a P.S. pension of 50 k or less. We could sell the TV rights to an X Factor style contest to see who gets guillotined every week.

Damn...I don't believe in Capital punishment....:mad:

thebman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Feck it - let's charge with treason - (acting against the best interests of the state) - everyone who won't accept a P.S. pension of 50 k or less. We could sell the TV rights to an X Factor style contest to see who gets guillotined every week.

Damn...I don't believe in Capital punishment....:mad:

The problem with reality death shows is some guy like this comes along and ruins your plans.
*violence in link though it was probably day time tv in the 80's :P*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIH0jnn7itE

Bannasidhe

thebman wrote: »

The problem with reality death shows is some guy like this comes along and ruins your plans.
*violence in link though it was probably day time tv in the 80's :P*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIH0jnn7itE

Ah - but in the original French version of the Running Man the guy dies!:D

turbodiesel

Unless they can prove a case of a large debt on there main household to serve or extreme medical costs i would suggest 60k as appropriate...

Godge

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Should there be a cap or maximum state pension????



Can it be made backward compatible and how?
What should the cap be set at I would argue somewhere in the region of 50,000 to 100,000, 65,000 seems a good figure???
Who much would this save?
Who many people are currently getting more than this theoretical cap?
Anyone got facts and figures ?
what's the downside?

Seems a fair way to me to cut cost without affecting society too much
Discuss?

PS
This is not an attack on public sector workers or pensions merely the excessive pensions that are being paid out now to top-end public sector workers

Not an attack on public sector workers or pensions:rolleyes:, but every post since the OP has done just that.

Why not a 100% tax on all pension payments above 60k and all earnings above 100k so nobody gets above themselves. Oh no, that might affect private sector workers as well. In fact, just take it out of their pension fund, didn't that idea get loads of support on here?

Seriously, if people worked hard and got to the top of their profession, why shouldn't they get the rewards they deserve? Irish medical consultants are no better off than most in Western Europe and they keep some of us alive.


Standard disclaimer: I am not a public sector employeee, I am a former public sector employee but I now work in the private sector so do not attack me for views sympathetic to the public sector.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Not an attack on public sector workers or pensions:rolleyes:, but every post since the OP has done just that.

Why not a 100% tax on all pension payments above 60k and all earnings above 100k so nobody gets above themselves. Oh no, that might affect private sector workers as well. In fact, just take it out of their pension fund, didn't that idea get loads of support on here?

Seriously, if people worked hard and got to the top of their profession, why shouldn't they get the rewards they deserve? Irish medical consultants are no better off than most in Western Europe and they keep some of us alive.


Standard disclaimer: I am not a public sector employeee, I am a former public sector employee but I now work in the private sector so do not attack me for views sympathetic to the public sector.

In my case I specified P.S pensions simply because they are paid out of public funds. If someone has a large private pension - one would assume the same rates of tax as PAYE already apply - the difference there is that an already overburdened state is not paying their pensions.


(I was, and hope to be again, a P.S. worker )

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In my case I specified P.S pensions simply because they are paid out of public funds. If someone has a large private pension - one would assume the same rates of tax as PAYE already apply - the difference there is that an already overburdened state is not paying their pensions.


(I was, and hope to be again, a P.S. worker )

BUT

(1) a largely overburdened state has contributed many years of tax relief to the creation of those funds and

(2) a largely overburdened state allows some of those funds to be disbursed tax-free

(3) a largely overburdened state has more generous tax arrangements for over-65s than for ordinary workers


More time should be devoted to changing the above three issues which affect all large pensions rather than just once more again attacking public servants.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

BUT

(1) a largely overburdened state has contributed many years of tax relief to the creation of those funds and

(2) a largely overburdened state allows some of those funds to be disbursed tax-free

(3) a largely overburdened state has more generous tax arrangements for over-65s than for ordinary workers


More time should be devoted to changing the above three issues which affect all large pensions rather than just once more again attacking public servants.

I repeat I did not attack P.S workers - I explained why I specified those particular pensions. Please do not ascribe intentions to me.

ALL pensions should be taxable according to the same rules as PAYE income. Yes, the State has given generous tax breaks to private pension pots - those must end. It also failed via the Regulation system to protect many of those private pensions. Many private sector workers no longer have pensions as they have been wiped out - this is not the case for P.S. workers.

ardmacha

What should the cap be set at I would argue somewhere in the region of 50,000 to 100,000, 65,000 seems a good figure???

This has a lot of merit. But to do a deal with someone whereby they are going to get a pension and then to renege in an arbitrary way on the deal when the time comes is corruption.

thebman

Don't see the point of a cap, just an appropriate level for each position. If it is comparable to the rest of Europe (well the financially healthy part at least :P) but above 65,000 then is there really a big problem with it?

Monife

fliball123 wrote: »

Anyone in the PS earning over say 60k should be hit with a 75% tax...So anything over that we get 3/4s back 60k + a year is more than enough

Do you think people working in the private sector on more than 60k should be hit with a 75% tax?

Head The Wall

The point is that PS workers only pay a fraction towards the pension they receive.

Monife

Head The Wall wrote: »

The point is that PS workers only pay a fraction towards the pension they receive.

The higher up people possibly. The normal clerical or executive officers only get half of their final pay per year and there is a cap on their (clerical officers) pay of circa 37k. A friend of mine is in the civil service 5 years and only earns after all the taxes, the pension contribution, the union and the pension levy, 345 per week. She is fluent in Irish and has a degree so it is not like she is what people love to brand civil service workers.

I used to be a PS basher too, but I got a small taste (2 year contract) of working in the PS and all the sh*te you read in the media is not true. The lower scale do not earn that much at all. It is the higher end people (which are a minority) and the government workers that people should be attacking.

Head The Wall

The lower paid are the ones that get overpaid the most compared to their comparable job on the private sector. theres a 32% difference at that level.

Your friend is either not using her degree very well or she chose a crap degree, a qualification entitles you to nothing.

To me an Irish qualification would only be good for translation work in govt. If that's why she chose it she has severely restricted career opportunities bar maybe teaching but we have loads of those as well.

Monife

Head The Wall wrote: »

The lower paid are the ones that get overpaid the most compared to their comparable job on the private sector. theres a 32% difference at that level.

Your friend is either not using her degree very well or she chose a crap degree, a qualification entitles you to nothing.

To me an Irish qualification would only be good for translation work in govt. If that's why she chose it she has severely restricted career opportunities bar maybe teaching but we have loads of those as well.

They are not overpaid at all, see link below. Clerical officers can earn up to 37k max but they only receive that after 14 years of service.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ282009.pdf

fliball123

Monife wrote: »

Do you think people working in the private sector on more than 60k should be hit with a 75% tax?

How much of the said private pension is the tax payer paying for??? mmm riddle me that hey...Why should I be paying in tax for pensions for people who fcuked up the country and I cant afford my own...By all means the public sector can avail of a private sector pension arrangement providing I and the other 1.2 odd million private sector tax payers dont have to pay for it. What is your problem with that?

bamboozle

if people contribute towards their pensions then there's no reason why they cant be worth as much as their contributions make them over the years.

my issue is people contributing fcek all into their pension pot and walking away with huge pensions, our td's and senator's entitlements are shocking.

fliball123

turbodiesel wrote: »

Unless they can prove a case of a large debt on there main household to serve or extreme medical costs i would suggest 60k as appropriate...

feck that if they were not prudent with their money fcuk them..they have the same options as the 300k odd in neg equity and up sh1t creek..This one rule for them and one rule for the rest needs a solid kick in flute

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Not an attack on public sector workers or pensions:rolleyes:, but every post since the OP has done just that.

Why not a 100% tax on all pension payments above 60k and all earnings above 100k so nobody gets above themselves. Oh no, that might affect private sector workers as well. In fact, just take it out of their pension fund, didn't that idea get loads of support on here?

Seriously, if people worked hard and got to the top of their profession, why shouldn't they get the rewards they deserve? Irish medical consultants are no better off than most in Western Europe and they keep some of us alive.


Standard disclaimer: I am not a public sector employeee, I am a former public sector employee but I now work in the private sector so do not attack me for views sympathetic to the public sector.

And are so much overpaid compared to thier counterparts..Godge I think you live in a different Ireland to me..the point is why should 1.2 million private sector tax payers be paying for 300k + those already retired...(included here are people who completely fcuked up the country) when the majority of the private sector cannot afford their own..they should get 60k and going forward anyone in the public sector should have the same route open to them as private sector workers do ...whats so unfair about that

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

This has a lot of merit. But to do a deal with someone whereby they are going to get a pension and then to renege in an arbitrary way on the deal when the time comes is corruption.

Just tax it over a certain amount ala the bankers bonuses..whats good for the private sector is good for the public sector too.

liammur

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Should there be a cap or maximum state pension????



Can it be made backward compatible and how?
What should the cap be set at I would argue somewhere in the region of 50,000 to 100,000, 65,000 seems a good figure???
Who much would this save?
Who many people are currently getting more than this theoretical cap?
Anyone got facts and figures ?
what's the downside?

Seems a fair way to me to cut cost without affecting society too much
Discuss?

PS
This is not an attack on public sector workers or pensions merely the excessive pensions that are being paid out now to top-end public sector workers

The likes of bertie ahern claiming multiple pensions and expenses renders the whole system a joke. And I'm told we need austerity? Wake up FG before you go the way of FF

Bannasidhe

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Should there be a cap or maximum state pension????





PS
This is not an attack on public sector workers or pensions merely the excessive pensions that are being paid out now to top-end public sector workers

Pensions and packages like these reported in today's Indo perhaps?

A CONTROVERSIAL 'special' payment given to the country's top civil servant is also paid to county managers.

The Irish Independent can reveal that the country's 34 county managers get a severance lump sum when they retire -- and it's worth an average €74,000.
...As well as this 'special' sweetener when they retire -- worth half their annual salary -- they also get added years of service which they have not actually worked, to further boost their pensions.

County managers stand to get packages from around €340,000 to more than €500,000 that include this special payment -- and one of them is due to retire within months.

They have been getting the special severance sum for 13 years but the Government refuses to provide proof it is forced to pay out the controversial sums.

It is hiding behind the "secret" nature of a decision to award the payments to secretary generals, made by the government of more than 20 years ago.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/revealed-euro74000-special-payoffs-to-county-chiefs-2881170.html

ardmacha

Just tax it over a certain amount ala the bankers bonuses..whats good for the private sector is good for the public sector too.

Bankers pensions have not been subject to any particular tax. Michael Fingleton doesn't pay any particular deduction.

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

Bankers pensions have not been subject to any particular tax. Michael Fingleton doesn't pay any particular deduction.

No one has defended these...and Fingleton and any other banker found implicit in fcuking up the country should also be hit with a 75% tax on their pension over 60k ..We could call it a "a thanks for fcuking up Ireland Tax"

OMD

Monife wrote: »

They are not overpaid at all, see link below. Clerical officers can earn up to 37k max but they only receive that after 14 years of service.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ282009.pdf

They only receive it after 14 years but then get it for the following 30 years

Monife

OMD wrote: »

They only receive it after 14 years but then get it for the following 30 years

Depending on the age they entered the civil service and the age of retirement.

donalg1

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Should there be a cap or maximum state pension????



Can it be made backward compatible and how?
What should the cap be set at I would argue somewhere in the region of 50,000 to 100,000, 65,000 seems a good figure???
Who much would this save?
Who many people are currently getting more than this theoretical cap?
Anyone got facts and figures ?
what's the downside?

Seems a fair way to me to cut cost without affecting society too much
Discuss?

PS
This is not an attack on public sector workers or pensions merely the excessive pensions that are being paid out now to top-end public sector workers

Do you mean the State Pension that everyone gets or the Pension the Public Sector workers get that they have paid into for forty years???

thebman

Monife wrote: »

They are not overpaid at all, see link below. Clerical officers can earn up to 37k max but they only receive that after 14 years of service.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ282009.pdf

Do they get that much better at their job in 14 years though is the question?

In many private sector organisations you'd be left on the same wage on the logic that if 3 years experience was all that was required for the role then why would they pay you more than that.

The state appears to have a complete inability to use any kind of similar logic. Surely the state knows how many people with 14 years experience it needs and it should ensure it has this number but not exceed it and people coming up to this experience level that are not needed with experience at that level should remain at the lower level until a position is vacated at the top level.

I see little point in having 13-50 people with the same experience. Eventually you reach a saturation point where the experience isn't making anything better and they are just getting paid more for working there for a long time.

donalg1

thebman wrote: »

Do they get that much better at their job in 14 years though is the question?

In many private sector organisations you'd be left on the same wage on the logic that if 3 years experience was all that was required for the role then why would they pay you more than that.

The state appears to have a complete inability to use any kind of similar logic. Surely the state knows how many people with 14 years experience it needs and it should ensure it has this number but not exceed it and people coming up to this experience level that are not needed with experience at that level should remain at the lower level until a position is vacated at the top level.

I see little point in having 13-50 people with the same experience. Eventually you reach a saturation point where the experience isn't making anything better and they are just getting paid more for working there for a long time.

`

Maybe i have misunderstood the above post and please correct me if i have, but are you saying a public sector employee should learn everything they need to know about their job in the first three years of their employment, and everything they have learned will do them for the full 40 years service. So a nurse or doctor learns all they need to know in the first three years of their career?

OMD

Monife wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

They only receive it after 14 years but then get it for the following 30 years

Depending on the age they entered the civil service and the age of retirement.

Yes. It could be longer than 30 years

OMD

donalg1 wrote: »

[

Maybe i have misunderstood the above post and please correct me if i have, but are you saying a public sector employee should learn everything they need to know about their job in the first three years of their employment, and everything they have learned will do them for the full 40 years service. So a nurse or doctor learns all they need to know in the first three years of their career?

Nurses and doctors have increments for 6 years usually. So unless they get promoted after this the pay will not go up.

donalg1

OMD wrote: »

Nurses and doctors have increments for 6 years usually. So unless they get promoted after this the pay will not go up.

Thats not what i asked though

OMD

donalg1 wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

Nurses and doctors have increments for 6 years usually. So unless they get promoted after this the pay will not go up.

Thats not what i asked though

It answers the question. Unless promoted a doctor will get 6 increments and no more. No matter how much extra they learn in the next 40 years. It is more than the 3 previously suggested and less than the 14 for civil servants.

donalg1

OMD wrote: »

It answers the question. Unless promoted a doctor will get 6 increments and no more. It is more than the 3 previously suggested and less than the 14 for civil servants.

The question i asked was "is the post saying that Public Sector employees know everything they need to know after three years in their job"?

OMD

donalg1 wrote: »

The question i asked was "is the post saying that Public Sector employees know everything they need to know after three years in their job"?

The point of the post is, that after 3 years, unless promoted an employee should know enough about their job. The extra they may learn over the next 40 years is not sufficient to warrant a pay increase unless they are promoted.

Godge

OMD wrote: »

Nurses and doctors have increments for 6 years usually. So unless they get promoted after this the pay will not go up.

couldn't find the doctors scale but

http://www.inmo.ie/INMOPage_9_35.aspx

shows that it takes nurses 13 years to reach the top of the scale (the last point being a long service increment).

Godge

OMD wrote: »

The point of the post is, that after 3 years, unless promoted an employee should know enough about their job. The extra they may learn over the next 40 years is not sufficient to warrant a pay increase unless they are promoted.

How can you judge that about every job when you have probably worked in only one or two different types of jobs in your life? Can you point to any academic literature or papers by researchers to back this up?

donalg1

OMD wrote: »

The point of the post is, that after 3 years, unless promoted an employee should know enough about their job. The extra they may learn over the next 40 years is not sufficient to warrant a pay increase unless they are promoted.

Despite the fact that their job or role is going to constantly change over the next 37 years, that they will have to constantly learn procedures legislation etc...?

OMD

donalg1 wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

The point of the post is, that after 3 years, unless promoted an employee should know enough about their job. The extra they may learn over the next 40 years is not sufficient to warrant a pay increase unless they are promoted.

Despite the fact that their job or role is going to constantly change over the next 37 years, that they will have to constantly learn procedures legislation etc...?

Absolutely. Everyone's work changes. Doesn't mean you get a pay rise for it. Also their work is hardly constantly changing.

fliball123

OMD wrote: »

Absolutely. Everyone's work changes. Doesn't mean you get a pay rise for it. Also their work is hardly constantly changing.

Exactly..hows about the change that your employer is broke..Talk about one rule for one circumstance and completely ignore it for another

donalg1

OMD wrote: »

Absolutely. Everyone's work changes. Doesn't mean you get a pay rise for it. Also their work is hardly constantly changing.

So advancements in medicine wouldnt occur that often in a forty year period then?

What happens then if you are given the work of a higher grade to do once they retire should you receive a pay increase then?

fliball123

donalg1 wrote: »

So advancements in medicine wouldnt occur that often in a forty year period then?

What happens then if you are given the work of a higher grade to do once they retire should you receive a pay increase then?

Donal I think the point here is that the country is fcuked there should be no pay rises / annual increments going on in the ps..infact they should be gettng a pay cut...and his point is that everyones job changes and you have to learn new skills for an example anyone who has worked in IT over the last 2 decades...

donalg1

fliball123 wrote: »

Donal I think the point here is that the country is fcuked there should be no pay rises / annual increments going on in the ps..infact they should be gettng a pay cut...and his point is that everyones job changes and you have to learn new skills for an example anyone who has worked in IT over the last 2 decades...

Well my point is why should the public service be the sole targets of pay cuts. What about Social Welfare, what about an increase in income tax so the Private Sector do their part too?

fliball123

donalg1 wrote: »

Well my point is why should the public service be the sole targets of pay cuts. What about Social Welfare, what about an increase in income tax so the Private Sector do their part too?

Are you for real the social welfare is going to have the balls cut off them in december the gov has said 2.3 billion will be comming off social welfare...And there weill be increase in taxes...aswell ..So now why no ps pay cuts?