The Public Sector Pay Gap in a selection of EU countries

nesf

From the ECB: http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1406.pdf

Haven't had a chance to read it (am sick and don't have the concentration) but remember people this only goes to 2007.


Hopefully people will find this interesting reading.

Godge

nesf wrote: »

From the ECB: http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1406.pdf

Haven't had a chance to read it (am sick and don't have the concentration) but remember people this only goes to 2007.


Hopefully people will find this interesting reading.

Thanks, an excellent read.

As many new questions as answers.

One thing I noticed is that while it states that in general, the wage gap is highest at the bottom and lowest at the top, but that in Ireland it is somewhat different. Had a look therefore at Table 5 in the Report.

The lowest premium is for the top 10% is 11.9%, for the bottom 10% the premium is 16.1% so at first glance it is similar to the EU picture. However, it is in the middle where the picture is different. For the group in the middle - at the 25%, 50% and 75% percentile, the differences are 19.8%, 21.1% and 18.6% respectively. Therefore it is not a linear progression.

This suggests that it is not the assistant secretaries and principal officers or clerical officers and cleaners that are the most overpaid - it is the group in the middle, the teachers, nurses, army officers, gardai, prison officers, lecturers, executive officers, higher executive officers etc. that are the most out of line with the private sector (This is a surprise to me as I had thought the clerical officer type grades were most out of line while others here thought pay at the top was most out of line - many of us were wrong for different reasons).

Another point the report acknowledges is that "public sector pay was effectively cut in 2009 via the introduction of the public service pension levy". Maybe people here could acknowledge from now on that in fact the pension levy was a pay cut. It also states that the forgoing of the T2016 increases, the pension levy and the pay cut were not taken into account. It is quite possible, given that pay levels are beginning to rise in the private sector, that the differential has been further cut since the report's data was collected.

All in all, very interesting.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Thanks, an excellent read.

As many new questions as answers.

One thing I noticed is that while it states that in general, the wage gap is highest at the bottom and lowest at the top, but that in Ireland it is somewhat different. Had a look therefore at Table 5 in the Report.

The lowest premium is for the top 10% is 11.9%, for the bottom 10% the premium is 16.1% so at first glance it is similar to the EU picture. However, it is in the middle where the picture is different. For the group in the middle - at the 25%, 50% and 75% percentile, the differences are 19.8%, 21.1% and 18.6% respectively. Therefore it is not a linear progression.

This suggests that it is not the assistant secretaries and principal officers or clerical officers and cleaners that are the most overpaid - it is the group in the middle, the teachers, nurses, army officers, gardai, prison officers, lecturers, executive officers, higher executive officers etc. that are the most out of line with the private sector (This is a surprise to me as I had thought the clerical officer type grades were most out of line while others here thought pay at the top was most out of line - many of us were wrong for different reasons).

Another point the report acknowledges is that "public sector pay was effectively cut in 2009 via the introduction of the public service pension levy". Maybe people here could acknowledge from now on that in fact the pension levy was a pay cut. It also states that the forgoing of the T2016 increases, the pension levy and the pay cut were not taken into account. It is quite possible, given that pay levels are beginning to rise in the private sector, that the differential has been further cut since the report's data was collected.

All in all, very interesting.

Sorry but IMO and in many others throughout the private sector who cannot afford their own pension, until Public sector pensions are not taking tax payers money away from other areas in order to service them then the pension levy will remain a very low contribution to a very generous defined benefit.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry but IMO and in many others throughout the private sector who cannot afford their own pension, until Public sector pensions are not taking tax payers money away from other areas in order to service them then the pension levy will remain a very low contribution to a very generous defined benefit.

Which bit of the report which is the subject of this thread are you quoting from?

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Which bit of the report which is the subject of this thread are you quoting from?

I am responding to your second last paragraph?

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

I am responding to your second last paragraph?

Which quoted from the report. Either you are going to dispute that aspect of the report with some independent research, logic or counter-argument to back you up or you are going to accept that report or your opinion is based on thin air?

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Which quoted from the report. Either you are going to dispute that aspect of the report with some independent research, logic or counter-argument to back you up or you are going to accept that report or your opinion is based on thin air?

Godge the figures are there the 7% in average pension levy does not come anywhere near covering public sector pensions..So as I say its a contribution to a defined benefit..when the ps are paying the full amount out of a levy then anything over that can be seen as a pay cut..Its amazing how many people who have links to the ps think the levy is a pay cut and then see the annual increments as not being a pay rise...selective when it suits

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Godge the figures are there the 7% in average pension levy does not come anywhere near covering public sector pensions..So as I say its a contribution to a defined benefit..when the ps are paying the full amount out of a levy then anything over that can be seen as a pay cut..Its amazing how many people who have links to the ps think the levy is a pay cut and then see the annual increments as not being a pay rise...selective when it suits

Yes I know what you say, I know what I say but the independent report states that it is effectively a pay cut.

You also know that while calling the pension levy a pay cut and supporting the payment of increments that I am in favour of targeted pay cuts for those groups that remain relatively overpaid which doesn't mean all public servants and after this report doesn't mean senior public servants. Resorting to generalisations about those who defend aspects of public service pay is not the highest form of the debate.

Maybe we can get back on topic and discuss the contents of the report and about how it might inform our opinions?

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Yes I know what you say, I know what I say but the independent report states that it is effectively a pay cut.

You also know that while calling the pension levy a pay cut and supporting the payment of increments that I am in favour of targeted pay cuts for those groups that remain relatively overpaid which doesn't mean all public servants and after this report doesn't mean senior public servants. Resorting to generalisations about those who defend aspects of public service pay is not the highest form of the debate.

Maybe we can get back on topic and discuss the contents of the report and about how it might inform our opinions?

I have often said that due to the collective bargaining ingrained in the PS and unions that when cuts do come (and they will) it will be without any impariality and the higher up in the ps will hide behind increments behind front line staff...but the PS cannot see that at present.

ardmacha

There is one point in table IIb Cumulative Growth in Wages and Salaries per Employee (1995-2008 % in nominal terms)

Public sector 68.6%
Total economy 69.1%

so PS wages increased about the rate of wages generally, and very much less than welfare benefits.

But then we've known this all along, as it was posted here on boards several times before.

Now in a boom you'd expect that perhaps PS wages would increase slightly less than the average, but in Ireland's boom a lot of relatively poorly paid immigrants entered the economy (cleaners, building labourers etc).

In any case the 14% decrease in PS wages balances things up, as this is a larger decline than salaries per employee in the economy.

RichardAnd

fliball123 wrote: »

Godge the figures are there the 7% in average pension levy does not come anywhere near covering public sector pensions..So as I say its a contribution to a defined benefit..when the ps are paying the full amount out of a levy then anything over that can be seen as a pay cut..Its amazing how many people who have links to the ps think the levy is a pay cut and then see the annual increments as not being a pay rise...selective when it suits

I would regard the levy as a pay cut in essence. Where it is applied, pay will be less thus, it is a pay cut. Of course, I also regard increments as pay rises through the very same logic.

antoobrien

ardmacha wrote: »

In any case the 14% decrease in PS wages balances things up, as this is a larger decline than salaries per employee in the economy.

But there's no 14% decrease in tax for the private sector (the cost of paying for their wages) to offset this because what's happening is an extra deduction is made from their gross pay as opposed to a reduction of the gross.

So the 14% reduction bit is a bit of a myth - especially the pension levy because it states clearly in the documentation that anybody leaving (not retiring) the PS will get the pension levy paid back in full.

RichardAnd

antoobrien wrote: »

But there's no 14% decrease in tax for the private sector (the cost of paying for their wages) to offset this because what's happening is an extra deduction is made from their gross pay as opposed to a reduction of the gross.

So the 14% reduction bit is a bit of a myth - especially the pension levy because it states clearly in the documentation that anybody leaving (not retiring) the PS will get the pension levy paid back in full.

If public sector wages were cut by 20% tomorrow, do you really believe the government would reduce taxes? I certainly don't

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

But there's no 14% decrease in tax for the private sector (the cost of paying for their wages) to offset this because what's happening is an extra deduction is made from their gross pay as opposed to a reduction of the gross.

So the 14% reduction bit is a bit of a myth - especially the pension levy because it states clearly in the documentation that anybody leaving (not retiring) the PS will get the pension levy paid back in full.

The bit in bold is wrong. Only those leaving the public service with less than two years employment will get the pension levy paid back in full.

Taxi Drivers

The data in this report is not collected on a public/private basis. The authors have data that puts workers into one of twelve categories. They assume that all those in the health, education and defence categories work in the public sector with everyone else working in the private sector. I'm not sure that this study would stand up to much scrutiny.

Godge

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

The data in this report is not collected on a public/private basis. The authors have data that puts workers into one of twelve categories. They assume that all those in the health, education and defence categories work in the public sector with everyone else working in the private sector. I'm not sure that this study would stand up to much scrutiny.

Agreed that there are a number of flaws in the study but there are flaws in all of the studies that have been done on the public sector/private sector pay gap.

Nevertheless there are some nuggets of useful information to be noted. For example, it says that women in the public service have a greater premium over the private sector. Does that reflect the greater career penetration of nursing and teaching by women and suggest that nursing and teaching are more overpaid than other parts of the public sector?

jester77

fliball123 wrote: »

Godge the figures are there the 7% in average pension levy does not come anywhere near covering public sector pensions..So as I say its a contribution to a defined benefit..when the ps are paying the full amount out of a levy then anything over that can be seen as a pay cut..Its amazing how many people who have links to the ps think the levy is a pay cut and then see the annual increments as not being a pay rise...selective when it suits

I agree with this, it's not really a pay cut.

Last year I upped the amount I am paying into my private pension, I don't have the luxury of relying on a cushy public pension (if one even exists by then) when I retire. I had less take home pay each month but I certainly don't look at it as a paycut, I look at it as contributing to a better retirement.

cursai

jester77 wrote: »

I agree with this, it's not really a pay cut.

Last year I upped the amount I am paying into my private pension, I don't have the luxury of relying on a cushy public pension (if one even exists by then) when I retire. I had less take home pay each month but I certainly don't look at it as a paycut, I look at it as contributing to a better retirement.

Most be nice have a private pension AND a free old age pension_which a lot of public servants don't get.

Taxi Drivers

jester77 wrote: »

I agree with this, it's not really a pay cut.

Last year I upped the amount I am paying into my private pension, I don't have the luxury of relying on a cushy public pension (if one even exists by then) when I retire. I had less take home pay each month but I certainly don't look at it as a paycut, I look at it as contributing to a better retirement.

The money paid by the public sector in the "Pension" Levy has nothing to do with pensions. The money is not used to meet current or future public sector spending. It is used to meet other current expenditure needs.

Here's what Brendan Howlin thinks in a recent debate in the Dail.

The Trident report assumes that the pension related deduction, commonly called the public service pension levy, is a pension contribution. This is mistaken and the law could not be clearer. Section 7(2) of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 states: “(2) A deduction under section 2 is not a pension contribution for the purposes of the Pensions Act 1990”. The pension levy contribution is a misnomer. It was called that by the previous Government, but it is a levy on pay.

I hope it will not be a permanent feature, as I said to the unions when I met them. In my judgment, it is mistake for unions to characterise it as a pension contribution because the fear will be at a future date that it will be subsumed into the calculation of pension contributions. Under the auspices of the Financial Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009, it is not, by definition, a permanent measure. I hope it will not be a permanent measure, but, obviously for the foreseeable future, it is required.

If the money was going to pensions then it is unlikely to be called a pay cut, but the money is not. The only link with pensions is the name.

If you were earning 200 a week and were due a pension of 100 a week on retirement and your employer decided to reduce your pay to 190 and keep your pension at 100 would you not consider it a pay cut?

There is no doubt that public sector pensions are worth more than the contributions made by public sector workers but the pension levy should not form part of the debate.

And there is a "cushy" public pension. It is currently at €230 per week and everyone gets it (except public sector workers!).

Frank Black

cursai wrote: »

Most be nice have a private pension AND a free old age pension_which a lot of public servants don't get.

I'd gladly swop my OAP and my defined contribution pension for the equivalent defined benefit pension for my equivalent grade in the PS

jester77

cursai wrote: »

Most be nice have a private pension AND a free old age pension_which a lot of public servants don't get.

It is far from free, my public pension costs over €450 a month from my salary but with the ratio of young : old and old people living longer I don't see the public pension where I am being workable when I retire.

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

The money paid by the public sector in the "Pension" Levy has nothing to do with pensions. The money is not used to meet current or future public sector spending. It is used to meet other current expenditure needs.

If this is the case, then why is always referenced as a "pension levy"?

Glinda

As someone with first-hand experience of the pension levy, here are some figures:

If a person retires on a salary of €50,000 with forty years service, they will be entitled to a pension of €25,000 minus the state pension of around €12,000, leaving a public service pension of €13,000 in total (assuming they started work after 1995).

Most people don't actually have forty years service when they retire, so let's say they have thirty years at retirement. Then they'll get 75% of that pension, or €9,750.

For this, before the pension levy, they were already paying 6.25% of their salary in pension deductions. After the levy, this percentage rose to almost 15%, or almost €7,500 per year until retirement.

I think the situation above would be fairly typical. Most people I know would rather have the option of investing 15% of salary in a private pension fund.

I know there are ridiculous pensions being paid to some, but most are in a position similar to the above.

HivemindXX

jester77 wrote: »

I agree with this, it's not really a pay cut.

Last year I upped the amount I am paying into my private pension, I don't have the luxury of relying on a cushy public pension (if one even exists by then) when I retire. I had less take home pay each month but I certainly don't look at it as a paycut, I look at it as contributing to a better retirement.

You're analysis is flawed. You are putting more money away and getting an extra benefit. In the case of the pension levy people are ending up with less money and getting no additional benefit. Many of whom do not have the sort of defined benefit pension that so irritates the likes of fliball.

Getting less money for no extra benefit is a pay cut. This is a simple fact. Anyone who argues that it is not is a fool or a liar.

Getting more money whether it's a result of an 'increment' or a promotion is a pay raise and it seems to me that the majority of people agree.

Frank Black

Glinda wrote: »

As someone with first-hand experience of the pension levy, here are some figures:

If a person retires on a salary of €50,000 with forty years service, they will be entitled to a pension of €25,000 minus the state pension of around €12,000, leaving a public service pension of €13,000 in total (assuming they started work after 1995).

Most people don't actually have forty years service when they retire, so let's say they have thirty years at retirement. Then they'll get 75% of that pension, or €9,750.

For this, before the pension levy, they were already paying 6.25% of their salary in pension deductions. After the levy, this percentage rose to almost 15%, or almost €7,500 per year until retirement.

I think the situation above would be fairly typical. Most people I know would rather have the option of investing 15% of salary in a private pension fund.

I know there are ridiculous pensions being paid to some, but most are in a position similar to the above.

Your figures are way off - for one thing you're assuming that they earning the final year salary throughout the 30years of pension payments - hardly likely.

Also - what about lump sum payments on retirement - you haven't even mentioned that.

If you honestly believe that people in the public service would give up their no-risk pension for a market investment private pension, you're completely deluded.

Taxi Drivers

jester77 wrote: »

If this is the case, then why is always referenced as a "pension levy"?

That was just the name that was given to it. They may have well as called it a Peanut Levy. It would make no difference.

deise blue

black francis wrote: »

I'd gladly swop my OAP and my defined contribution pension for the equivalent defined benefit pension for my equivalent grade in the PS

I certainly would not swap my Private Sector DB pension + the OAP for the equivalent grade in the PS - I would lose at least € 12,000.

Taxi Drivers

Glinda wrote: »

As someone with first-hand experience of the pension levy, here are some figures:

If a person retires on a salary of €50,000 with forty years service, they will be entitled to a pension of €25,000 minus the state pension of around €12,000, leaving a public service pension of €13,000 in total (assuming they started work after 1995).

Most people don't actually have forty years service when they retire, so let's say they have thirty years at retirement. Then they'll get 75% of that pension, or €9,750.

For this, before the pension levy, they were already paying 6.25% of their salary in pension deductions. After the levy, this percentage rose to almost 15%, or almost €7,500 per year until retirement.

I think the situation above would be fairly typical. Most people I know would rather have the option of investing 15% of salary in a private pension fund.

I know there are ridiculous pensions being paid to some, but most are in a position similar to the above.

They public sector worker will get a pension of €25k in the example you use. It has little to do with the state pension. If the state pension rises or falls the public sector pension will stay at €25k.

Frank Black

deise blue wrote: »

I certainly would not swap my Private Sector DB pension + the OAP for the equivalent grade in the PS - I would lose at least € 12,000.

Vast majority of people in the Private Sector don't get a DB scheme from their employer - you must be one of the lucky ones.

Glinda

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

They public sector worker will get a pension of €25k in the example you use. It has little to do with the state pension. If the state pension rises or falls the public sector pension will stay at €25k.

Nope, not if they started work since 1995. Old age pension is subtracted from public service pensions for anyone who started after that date.

Since everyone gets the state pension, it can't be counted as part of the defined benefit that is being somehow paid for out of the pension levy, (plus the original 6.25% that was being contributed before the levy).

In relation to assuming the same salary through the thirty years, I did that for simplicity, but it's not a million miles off the mark. If you want to run the figures along an incremental scale, you will still see that the benefits for Mary or Joe average are more than paid for by their contributions.

Glinda

On lump sum, a final salary of €75,000 will pay a lump sum of €75k on retirement. This is quite good, but can anyone post some figures showing whether investing 15% of a 50,000 salary in a the average private sector pension for 30 years would yield less than 75k on retirement plus 9750 per annum after that?

Taxi Drivers

Glinda wrote: »

Nope, not if they started work since 1995. Old age pension is subtracted from public service pensions for anyone who started after that date.

Since everyone gets the state pension, it can't be counted as part of the defined benefit that is being somehow paid for out of the pension levy, (plus the original 6.25% that was being contributed before the levy).

It's a subtraction rather than as addition. If the PS worker is entitled to a 25k pension and the state pension is 12k they get 25k - 12k = 13k as a PS worker.

If the state pension falls to 10k they get 25k - 10k = 15k as a PS worker.

They will get 25k regardless.

McTigs

Surely the easiest and fairest thing to do would be to

a) Increase the pension levy so it matches the benefit on retirement.... or reduce the pension so it matchs the contributions made. One or the other.

and

b) Make it optional so if any PS workers would rather not pay the pension levy they can opt out and instead take out their own private pension if they so wish.

That way nobody is paying for anybody else and nobody, not public nor private sector would have any need to winge about the other.

ArphaRima

salary of €50,000 with forty years service

This I also doubt. What kind of menial position earns 50k after 40 years service? I'm sure there are such positions but I'm curious how lowly it would have to be.

fliball123

deise blue wrote: »

I certainly would not swap my Private Sector DB pension + the OAP for the equivalent grade in the PS - I would lose at least € 12,000.

I smell a rat here Deise your ingrained in pro ps

fliball123

McTigs wrote: »

Surely the easiest and fairest thing to do would be to

a) Increase the pension levy so it matches the benefit on retirement.... or reduce the pension so it matchs the contributions made. One or the other.

and

b) Make it optional so if any PS workers would rather not pay the pension levy they can opt out and instead take out their own private pension if they so wish.

That way nobody is paying for anybody else and nobody, not public nor private sector would have any need to winge about the other.

They should just stop paying for it..tell the ps whats in it now is there and the tax payer is no longer paying..if they want to continue they have to fund it themselves that way those here moaning about the levy dont have to pay it but will take a hit when they reach retirement age and the Tax payer is off the hook

Glinda

fluffer wrote: »

This I also doubt. What kind of menial position earns 50k after 40 years service? I'm sure there are such positions but I'm curious how lowly it would have to be.

Anyone retiring as an Executive Officer (Higher Scale) or any grade below that one will retire on less than €50,000 (e.g. max of EO standard scale is €45,616 after 19 years service).

For anyone starting after Jan 2011, the salaries are 10% lower.

woodoo

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

The money paid by the public sector in the "Pension" Levy has nothing to do with pensions. The money is not used to meet current or future public sector spending. It is used to meet other current expenditure needs.

Here's what Brendan Howlin thinks in a recent debate in the Dail.



If the money was going to pensions then it is unlikely to be called a pay cut, but the money is not. The only link with pensions is the name.

If you were earning 200 a week and were due a pension of 100 a week on retirement and your employer decided to reduce your pay to 190 and keep your pension at 100 would you not consider it a pay cut?

There is no doubt that public sector pensions are worth more than the contributions made by public sector workers but the pension levy should not form part of the debate.

And there is a "cushy" public pension. It is currently at €230 per week and everyone gets it (except public sector workers!).

Great post and 100% accurate. That should be the final word on this pension levy arguement. Its a cut and nothing else.

deise blue

black francis wrote: »

Vast majority of people in the Private Sector don't get a DB scheme from their employer - you must be one of the lucky ones.

Indeed I am one of the lucky ones - like the thousands of current pensioners benefitting from the DB scheme of which I am a member - many current working members of the scheme have seen increases to their contributions to the scheme due to underfunding issues but such contributions are still a fraction of what Public Sector workers currently contribute.

I realise that DB schemes are becoming less popular - the Pension Board however estimate that 232,000 people continue to be members of DB schemes.

Glinda

McTigs wrote: »

Surely the easiest and fairest thing to do would be to

a) Increase the pension levy so it matches the benefit on retirement.... or reduce the pension so it matchs the contributions made. One or the other.

and

b) Make it optional so if any PS workers would rather not pay the pension levy they can opt out and instead take out their own private pension if they so wish.

That way nobody is paying for anybody else and nobody, not public nor private sector would have any need to winge about the other.

Absolutely agree 100%

fliball123

RichardAnd wrote: »

If public sector wages were cut by 20% tomorrow, do you really believe the government would reduce taxes? I certainly don't

No but would it decrease our deficit YES

Pharaoh1

McTigs wrote: »

Surely the easiest and fairest thing to do would be to

a) Increase the pension levy so it matches the benefit on retirement.... or reduce the pension so it matchs the contributions made. One or the other.

and

b) Make it optional so if any PS workers would rather not pay the pension levy they can opt out and instead take out their own private pension if they so wish.

That way nobody is paying for anybody else and nobody, not public nor private sector would have any need to winge about the other.

Of course this would be the sensible thing to do but naturally it won't happen.
Why?
The system is a complete and total mess. I'm taking the extremes here but the people who will exit in February will by and large have won the lotto. Tiny contributions by comparison with their benefit - No full PRSI paid, small % superannuation and the pension levy for only the last couple of years and pre cut pensions and lump sum.
By contrast a clerical officer only a few years in the job is being completely and utterly screwed by the pension system for very obvious reasons. Bringing in a system where benefits broadly reflected contributions would result in enormous problems which no govt will tackle.

Also the current contributions from PS are needed to help keep the unfunded and growing pension ponzi going for another while at least until we eventually have to face up to it. It is effectively a forced deduction to the pyramid scheme and like all such schemes the beneficaries will be those who get out first.
I can understand to a degree why PS staff and their unions are not campaigning to have the option to opt out. They see the type of pensions that are being awarded at the moment and are thinking that that arrangement will suit them just fine when their time comes.
The reforms that have been introduced are a joke really in that they won't have any effect for forty years but the govt will naturally seek to maintain the status quo.
IMO the tipping point will come when
(a) the PS pension bill becomes such a large portion of the overall tax take that the public will simply demand change
or (b) the govt levies the PS so much to pay for the pensions that the staff themselves especially the younger and lower paid will demand an opt out.

McTigs

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

There is no doubt that public sector pensions are worth more than the contributions made by public sector workers but the pension levy should not form part of the debate.

?????

i would have thought it was fundemental to the debate.

Gumbo

McTigs wrote: »

Surely the easiest and fairest thing to do would be to

a) Increase the pension levy so it matches the benefit on retirement.... or reduce the pension so it matchs the contributions made. One or the other.

and

b) Make it optional so if any PS workers would rather not pay the pension levy they can opt out and instead take out their own private pension if they so wish.

That way nobody is paying for anybody else and nobody, not public nor private sector would have any need to winge about the other.

You do realise the ps workers also pay pension contributions as well as the levy as well as PRSI for the coap.

fliball123

McTigs wrote: »

?????

i would have thought it was fundemental to the debate.

Ditto so taxi drivers thinks its ok for the private sector tax payer to pay the shortfall on these pensions when the vast majority cannot afford their own...

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

You do realise the ps workers also pay pension contributions as well as the levy as well as PRSI for the coap.

We do KC but would you agree that what is being paid or in the past what has been paid does not cover what is needed therefore the shortfall falls on the already over burdened private sector tax payer who the vast majority cant afford their own pensions

McTigs

kceire wrote: »

You do realise the ps workers also pay pension contributions as well as the levy as well as PRSI for the coap.

yes i do realise that. i also realise that in spite of all that it still falls short of covering the benefit on retirement. that's the point.

murphaph

deise blue wrote: »

I realise that DB schemes are becoming less popular - the Pension Board however estimate that 232,000 people continue to be members of DB schemes.

How many private sector employees are in a DB scheme?

I can only think of a handful of companies that still have an option to join a DB scheme.

fliball123

murphaph wrote: »

How many private sector employees are in a DB scheme?

I can only think of a handful of companies that still have an option to join a DB scheme.

I believe BOI are in it ..i used to work there had the DB scheme for 3 years...

Frank Black

fliball123 wrote: »

I believe BOI are in it ..i used to work there had the DB scheme for 3 years...

Given we own most of the banks, they're the most public private sector workers in the economy.

My wife works for a firm of solicitors, she's on a DB scheme, but she joined the firm over a decade ago and it hasn't been open to new recruits for years.

deise blue

murphaph wrote: »

How many private sector employees are in a DB scheme?

I can only think of a handful of companies that still have an option to join a DB scheme.

LCP Ireland in a pensions briefing in 2010 reported that of the 25 largest companies quoted on the ISEQ 21 operated DB schemes , 12 State Companies also operated such schemes.

Obviously there are a number of smaller firms who also run similar schemes.

A number of companies also have hybrid schemes.

The Pension Board figure of 232,000 refers members of DB schemes & not hybrid offshoots.

largepants

I'm amazed by some posters on this thread who seem so concerned about the Irish economy. Yet they only have something to add when it's a PS debate. You know who you are.