State to pay €1.2 billion in lump sums to retiring PS over 2 years

n97 mini

Reported in today's Sunday Business Post, the state will have paid out €1.2 billion in lump sums to retiring Public Sector workers in 2011 and 2012.

(For those that don't know: Public Sector workers get up to 1.5 years' pay, tax-free, upon retirement. The media often refer to this as a 'golden parachute').

Should this practice, which is not generally mirrored in the private sector, and something we arguably can't afford, be done away with going forward?

snubbleste

Yes.

steelcityblues

Older, retired PS workers have it very nice, and are not as 'vulnerable' as the PR campaigns would tell us.

Too many establishment commentators are afraid to say this.

Figerty

If this is to be done away with, then I as a public sector worker should be entitled to opt out of my own pension contribution and do my own thing regarding providing for my future.

I signed a contract with the Government on the day I finally got made permanent, as part of that deal, I agreed to pay a pension contribution and as part of that was the grant of a lump sum at the end and a pension.

If I never did a days work in my life I would get an old age pension of about €11,00 a year at 66.

Deal with the complex part of the problem before you give a simple answer.

Actually it reminds me of a quote.."For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

snubbleste

A new emergency bill through the Oireachtas by Thursday, signed by the President on Friday to fire all State employees on Saturday at 23:59 and re-hire them on Sunday at 00:00 on lower terms & conditions of employment. :cool:
Everyone would still get the minimum contributory state pension.
A short sharp economic correction.

Helix

who could hire them back if they're all fired

-Chris-

Figerty wrote: »

If this is to be done away with, then I as a public sector worker should be entitled to opt out of my own pension contribution and do my own thing regarding providing for my future.

If you were given the choice between your current pension arrangements and doing your own thing, which would you choose?

femur61

I think one reason people get so annoyed with the PS is non of them are accountable, they don't fired, increments for being there. They seem to forget who is actually providing the finance for thier wages!

The_Thing

No.

kippy

-Chris- wrote: »

If you were given the choice between your current pension arrangements and doing your own thing, which would you choose?

That's not the choice the poster is talking about making.......

Lump sums for pensionable earnings SHOULD be taxed at normal rates - which is what is going to happen from February of this year (I think)

How many billions have gone to unsecured banking bondholders in the same period?

CamperMan

cut everything else, screw the poor and give these muppets big payouts.. the IMF should come in and say "oy, no more of these big handouts until you have sorted out your financial problems.. carry on and there will be no more bailouts from us (IMF)"

-Chris-

kippy wrote: »

That's not the choice the poster is talking about making.......

Which poster - the OP or the one I quoted?



My understanding is that the premise of the thread is asking whether the lump sums should be discontinued, not whether they should be taxed.
Did I take that up wrong?

Figerty

To be honest I would probably do my own thing.

I was told of an actuarial study a few years ago about dropping the retirement age for teachers. Most teachers who retire at the 65 don't live long enough to ever get back their contribution, If they dropped the age to 60(ish) the expected lifespan was late 70's so the idea of dropping the age was swiftly dropped!

I can't tell you the truth of that, but it does make a sort of sense with the stress levels.

-Chris- wrote: »

If you were given the choice between your current pension arrangements and doing your own thing, which would you choose?

woodoo

snubbleste wrote: »

A new emergency bill through the Oireachtas by Thursday, signed by the President on Friday to fire all State employees on Saturday at 23:59 and re-hire them on Sunday at 00:00 on lower terms & conditions of employment. :cool:
Everyone would still get the minimum contributory state pension.
A short sharp economic correction.

The PS Unions would call their bluff. Who would do the work if the all staff decided to take some time off. And demanded to be brought back on better terms when the government realised what was happening.. No guards on the street at all, nobody working in the hospitals, nobody administering any public office in the country etc etc.

kippy

-Chris- wrote: »

kippy wrote: »

That's not the choice the poster is talking about making.......

Which poster - the OP or the one I quoted?



My understanding is that the premise of the thread is asking whether the lump sums should be discontinued, not whether they should be taxed.
Did I take that up wrong?

The poster you quoted stated if Lump sums were "done away with" they would like the option to withdraw from the PS pension scheme. That would change (in a major way) the "current" pension scheme for that poster and I suspect the figures may not add up.

Why should lump sums be discontinued ahead of anything else that is currently happening in this economy?

Figerty

You took the OP up correctly, however the question is overly simplified and will never be a realistic choice.

-Chris- wrote: »

Which poster - the OP or the one I quoted?



My understanding is that the premise of the thread is asking whether the lump sums should be discontinued, not whether they should be taxed.
Did I take that up wrong?

Punchy1969

[Quote=Figerty;

Public Servants work for and pay into their pensions for 30 to 40 years of service to the State. Not all are high earners. All pensions pay out a lump sum with a weekly payout too. I think that after giving this much of time and payments public servants deserve the lump sum. And as a matter of fact, the pension levy of 7.5 percent is deducted with every pay docket along with a recent 4 percent cut in the pension, not to mention the next pension cut coming in February. When will people be happy?

sarumite

kippy wrote: »

How many billions have gone to unsecured banking bondholders in the same period?

It was only a matter of time before someone brought up unsecured banking bondholders. It seems anytime awkward questions about government spending are asks, someone somewhere mentions bondholders. Its almost as if they believe that if weren't for the government paying these bondholders, life would be peachy.

Figerty

When will people will be happy?

When the scape goat is slaughtered,,, and then discover there is no milk for the tea!

Punchy1969 wrote: »

[Quote=Figerty;

Public Servants work for and pay into their pensions for 30 to 40 years of service to the State. Not all are high earners. All pensions pay out a lump sum with a weekly payout too. I think that after giving this much of time and payments public servants deserve the lump sum. And as a matter of fact, the pension levy of 7.5 percent is deducted with every pay docket along with a recent 4 percent cut in the pension, not to mention the next pension cut coming in February. When will people be happy?

road_high

woodoo wrote: »

The PS Unions would call their bluff. Who would do the work if the all staff decided to take some time off. And demanded to be brought back on better terms when the government realised what was happening.. No guards on the street at all, nobody working in the hospitals, nobody administering any public office in the country etc etc.

I say bring it on. There's over 450,000 people on the dole in this country plus countless others that have emigrated that would give their right limb to be on a fraction of the pay and conditions of these people. Time for the government to call their bluff and get real. We can't stay borrowing indefinitely to prop this farce up. And I sure as hell ain't paying any more taxes for nurse to be on 80k per annum (friend recently told him his mam is a nurse manager on this salary). Ludicrious stuff.

road_high

Punchy1969 wrote: »

[Quote=Figerty;

Public Servants work for and pay into their pensions for 30 to 40 years of service to the State. Not all are high earners. All pensions pay out a lump sum with a weekly payout too. I think that after giving this much of time and payments public servants deserve the lump sum. And as a matter of fact, the pension levy of 7.5 percent is deducted with every pay docket along with a recent 4 percent cut in the pension, not to mention the next pension cut coming in February. When will people be happy?

You would swear they were doing it all along for free .
Not on better salaries than any where else in Europe.

woodoo

mfitzy wrote: »

I say bring it on. There's over 450,000 people on the dole in this country plus countless others that have emigrated that would give their right limb to be on a fraction of the pay and conditions of these people. Time for the government to call their bluff and get real. We can't stay borrowing indefinitely to prop this farce up. And I sure as hell ain't paying any more taxes for nurse to be on 80k per annum (friend recently told him his mam is a nurse manager on this salary). Ludicrious stuff.

Yeah and they are all qualified to do every job in the PS. Just hand them the keys.

road_high

woodoo wrote: »

Yeah and they are all qualified to do every job in the PS. Just hand them the keys.

Many are. And many could be trained. Guard or nurse? Hardly rocket science. Nobody is irreplacable these days my dear

woodoo

mfitzy wrote: »

Many are. And many could be trained. Guard or nurse? Hardly rocket science. Nobody is irreplacable these days my dear

Who is going to train them. Are they going to be in place for the following day. What is going to happen in the days following the mass stoppage of work.

Are we going to take Anto out of the bookies and put him in the operating room

barneystinson

mfitzy wrote: »

Many are. And many could be trained. Guard or nurse? Hardly rocket science. Nobody is irreplacable these days my dear

You're joking right, please tell me you're joking?!

I totally agree that nobody's irreplaceable, but there's a long way between that and what you've suggested, which is that everyone is immediately replaceable. You're not living in the real world if you were even approaching serious.

Nevermind the fact that you're talking about replacing one set of unemployed people with another. And I presume that seeing as you no doubt believe the PS is grossly overstaffed at present, so we'd actually end up with even more people unemployed, and a PS full of people who have even less of an idea what they're at, than the present bunch.

Good plan... :rolleyes:

The_Honeybadger

This would seem to be an incredibly generous arrangement, and should be taxed at the very least, which I believe is going to happen soon. Altering the pensions of future retirees beyond this will be very tricky with unions involved, and I wouldn't expect much to happen unless we have a complete and total meltdown of the public finances (default etc.). In that situation everything will be fair game, but lets hope we get a few breaks and it doesn't come to that.

barneystinson

Just as a by the way, for anyone who's actually interested in facts as opposed to just blowing hot air out of their various orifices...

TAX FREE LUMP SUMS ON RETIREMENT ARE NOT UNIQUE TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR!

Anyone who is in a pension scheme, occupational or private (such as PRSA), gets a tax free lump sum on retirement. Thats how pensions in this country work lads. Now, whether or not ALL lump sums on retirement should be taxed, that's the real question.

Idbatterim

TAX FREE LUMP SUMS ON RETIREMENT ARE NOT UNIQUE TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR!

yeah but they arent spending tax payers money...

barneystinson

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah but they arent spending tax payers money...

Eh? Who are "they"?

What point are you trying to make exactly?

Are you going for your PhD in stating the obvious by trotting out the old chestnut that the cost of all payments to the PS are paid by "the taxpayer", which includes the PS?!

The point I was trying to make is that every person in the country who retires in the next 2 years will be entitled to a tax free lump sum based on a function of their salary at retirement and their period of service or contributions (or a % of their pension pot in somes cases)... If it needs to be taxed then by all means tax it, but to suggest that PS workers should be unilaterally punished is a nonsense.

twowheelsonly

sarumite wrote: »

It was only a matter of time before someone brought up unsecured banking bondholders. It seems anytime awkward questions about government spending are asks, someone somewhere mentions bondholders. Its almost as if they believe that if weren't for the government paying these bondholders, life would be peachy.

It would certainly be a lot peachier than it is at present.
Bondholders should be mentioned in every argument for the next 50 years IMO. 'Lest we Forget...' and all that..

Great to see the Eddie Hobbs supporters club out in force again. It's been a while !! According to the bould Eddie it's the Public/Civil Service that have the country ruined with our 'Gilt Edged' pensions and allowances.
At current rates my pension payment would be around €450 pw.(Est..). Including Pension Levies and payments I'm currently paying an average of around €360 a fortnight - (this week was actually €470ish as they had under-deducted last year and so took the lot in one go this week.)
Considering that if I paid never paid anything in I'd qualify for a State pension of around €200 then I think that I'm quite right to feel that I'm doing my bit, as are thousands of other State Employees who are contracted into this pension.
IMO it's a reasonable pension, but nothing more than that.

The reason that there's such a large Lump Sum payout on the horizon is obviously because of the large number of retirements that the Government has all but forced on people, many of whom had no intention of retiring yet.

heyjude

Figerty wrote: »

To be honest I would probably do my own thing.

I was told of an actuarial study a few years ago about dropping the retirement age for teachers. Most teachers who retire at the 65 don't live long enough to ever get back their contribution, If they dropped the age to 60(ish) the expected lifespan was late 70's so the idea of dropping the age was swiftly dropped!

I can't tell you the truth of that, but it does make a sort of sense with the stress levels.

How many years would you estimate it would take for a teacher to get back their contributions ? As I would figure that with the tax free lump sum and the pension % linked to their salary, they would quickly get back their contributions and despite the talk of stress, teachers have among the longest life expectancies, with the 2005 UK figures ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567252/Why-accountants-live-longer-than-builders.html ) for Men in managerial and technical occupations such as journalists and teacher, showing an average life expectancy of 79.4yrs and 83.2yrs for women in the same occupations. So assuming retirement at 65yrs(and many retire earlier), a male teacher would on average collect his lump sum and 14.4yrs pension and a female teacher, her lump sum and 18.2yrs pension. The profession, especially at primary level is also predominantly female, so more teachers in that sector would be collecting for 18 years.

cyclopath2001

n97 mini wrote: »

.Should this practice, which is not generally mirrored in the private sector, and something we arguably can't afford, be done away with going forward?

You mean default on an agreement?

I think the two planks of your argument are that you consider the payment to be unjustified and and the recipients to be unable to resist the default.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

The PS Unions would call their bluff. Who would do the work if the all staff decided to take some time off. And demanded to be brought back on better terms when the government realised what was happening.. No guards on the street at all, nobody working in the hospitals, nobody administering any public office in the country etc etc.

Back in the days of the 'blue flu' there were still guards on the street and nurses never stopped working outright during their striking periods. Unions have common sense and know that patients dying in corridors does their cause no good whatsoever.

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

Who is going to train them. Are they going to be in place for the following day. What is going to happen in the days following the mass stoppage of work.

Are we going to take Anto out of the bookies and put him in the operating room

Hi guys happy new year to all ... reporting in from Down under...have to say I miss Ireland even do the sun is shining here...Nice to see some things havent changed such as the PS sense of they are irreplaceable..The gov should start with bringing in a backup plan for the union such as going out and having contracts at the ready for people all over the world to come in for 6 months to do the jobs that people in the ps are doing ..even in the short run if it cost twice as much to break the unions the savings in the longer term would be worth it and I am with a previous poster no one is irreplacable these days but in the PS unsackable is the word..Its time Enda got a cinema ticket and had a look at the iron lady. On a seperate note I wish all a good year ahead

HellFireClub

Figerty wrote: »

If this is to be done away with, then I as a public sector worker should be entitled to opt out of my own pension contribution and do my own thing regarding providing for my future.

I signed a contract with the Government on the day I finally got made permanent, as part of that deal, I agreed to pay a pension contribution and as part of that was the grant of a lump sum at the end and a pension.

If I never did a days work in my life I would get an old age pension of about €11,00 a year at 66.

Deal with the complex part of the problem before you give a simple answer.

Actually it reminds me of a quote.."For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

Your "pension contributions" I think though, fall very very considerably short of covering the entire cost of your PS pension.

If we look your point to its next logical destination, we would tell the government to sit down with you upon your retirement, and discuss the value of your pension fund (made up of your own contributions and contributions that your employer may have been making into your pension fund), with you (this is how it works in the private sector), and look at what you can afford to do with the funds that you have, as in, "you can afford to take 20K of a lump sum and then there will be enough left for you to have a pension of 300 Euro a week, or if you don't take the lump sum now, you will have a weekly pension amount of 400 Euro a week".

There is a long way to go before we have something like this, and the set up at the moment, where our government are notionally throwing lump sums to the value of hundreds of Euro at PS folks retiring, and then leaving them on hugely valuable weekly/monthly salary incomes, is simply unacceptable I think.

twowheelsonly

HellFireClub wrote: »

Your "pension contributions" I think though, fall very very considerably short of covering the entire cost of your PS pension.

If we look your point to its next logical destination, we would tell the government to sit down with you upon your retirement, and discuss the value of your pension fund (made up of your own contributions and contributions that your employer may have been making into your pension fund), with you (this is how it works in the private sector), and look at what you can afford to do with the funds that you have, as in, "you can afford to take 20K of a lump sum and then there will be enough left for you to have a pension of 300 Euro a week, or if you don't take the lump sum now, you will have a weekly pension amount of 400 Euro a week".

There is a long way to go before we have something like this, and the set up at the moment, where our government are notionally throwing lump sums to the value of hundreds of Euro at PS folks retiring, and then leaving them on hugely valuable weekly/monthly salary incomes, is simply unacceptable I think.

On the first highlighted point - that is the theory behind all Pension Schemes. You invest money, over however number of years, and you get more back at the other end than you actually put in. Otherwise you might as well just put it in the Post Office.
Private pensions have taken a hammering though because those self appointed experts that you entrusted with your money choose to invest it hugely in property over the past few years. They were chasing the 'Quick Buck' and using it as a selling point. Nobody took any notice if the little addendum though - "The value of your investment may fall as well as rise...". Clever wording, "rise as well as fall" doesn't have the same ring to it and may have led to people asking questions.

The Government are not 'Notionally throwing money at PS retirees' either. These are generally (in the case of run of the mill Public Servants) calculated Pensions/Lump Sums based on a number of factors.
Have a look at my last post - (#30). If I retire tomorrow on full pension I'll get approx €450 a week. That's 250 more than my free State Pension and for that pleasure I'm currently paying 180 pw approx. If I started a Private 30 year pension tomorrow paying 180 pw I'd expect an equivalent or better return in a lump sum and a weekly pension than I will currently get from my State one.

Geuze

Interesting anecdotal case.

The Irish couple rescued from the capsized cruise ship off Italy - the man is aged 52, a retired Env Health Official.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...6.html?via=rel

Retired at aged 52, on a cruise.

If he lives to 82, that's 30 yrs + of pensions to be paid. Costly.

n97 mini

Another anecdotal one. Garda works for 30 years, retires age 50 on full pension, lives to average life expectancy age of 79.

Retires on €62k (average Garda pay according to CSO), giving pension of €31k.

29 years of pension plus 1.5 years gratuity is €899,000 + €93,000 = €962,000

For simplicity we'll assume he/she was on €62k since they jointed the force. As a single person in the PS would have total deductions of €26k per annum in tax, PRSI, pension contribution, USC etc.

Paying €26k for 30 years total €780,000.

So, already the entire amount paid in, in every form, is €180k short.

murphaph

Figerty wrote: »

To be honest I would probably do my own thing.

I was told of an actuarial study a few years ago about dropping the retirement age for teachers. Most teachers who retire at the 65 don't live long enough to ever get back their contribution, If they dropped the age to 60(ish) the expected lifespan was late 70's so the idea of dropping the age was swiftly dropped!

I can't tell you the truth of that, but it does make a sort of sense with the stress levels.

Average life expectancy in Ireland is 78.9 years, so if the study you read was accurate and you recall it accurately then teachers have average life expectancy, not shorter due to "stress" (which we all have in all our jobs from 9-5 every day, including various holy days and "half term holidays" by the way, and we don't have several weeks off a year during summer to recuperate)

I can guarantee you that opting out of the current system and doing your own thing would be a poor decision (assuming you reach average life expectancy). The security alone in having s defined benefit pension is worth a considerable amount. (Almost) no private sector employee starting into a new pension scheme in 2012 could dream of receiving a defined benefit upon retirement.

HellFireClub

Geuze wrote: »

Interesting anecdotal case.

The Irish couple rescued from the capsized cruise ship off Italy - the man is aged 52, a retired Env Health Official.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...6.html?via=rel

Retired at aged 52, on a cruise.

If he lives to 82, that's 30 yrs + of pensions to be paid. Costly.

This is normal enough, folks retiring from the PS in their early 50's with a six digit lump sum and a gold plated salary based pension entitlement then until they die.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Private Sector, you try GOING NEAR your pension before you hit your pensionable age, which is usually set out as being 65 years of age, you'll find that it's impossible to get near your pension this side of your state dictated retirement age.

murphaph

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Have a look at my last post - (#30). If I retire tomorrow on full pension I'll get approx €450 a week. That's 250 more than my free State Pension and for that pleasure I'm currently paying 180 pw approx. If I started a Private 30 year pension tomorrow paying 180 pw I'd expect an equivalent or better return in a lump sum and a weekly pension than I will currently get from my State one.

The state pension is also ridiculously over generous compared to elsewhere though. It needs cutting as well.

I pay several hundred € per month towards my German state pension (in Germany you actually see what funds what on your payslip: pension, unemployment insurance, health insurance etc.), which is directly linked to what I contribute. If I contribute less (ie, I earn less) then I get a smaller pension. There is no "flat rate" pension as there is in Ireland. It's all relative to how much I contribute.

If I contribute nothing I may be eligible for social assistance money (around €350 per month) but certainly not an Irish style non-contributory pension of the order of €800+ a month + assorted benefits (phone, TV licence, etc. etc.)

RichardAnd

HellFireClub wrote: »

This is normal enough, folks retiring from the PS in their early 50's with a six digit lump sum and a gold plated salary based pension entitlement then until they die.

No it isn't. Most public servants retire at 60 and that only applies to those hired before 1995.

largepants

Geuze wrote: »

Interesting anecdotal case.

The Irish couple rescued from the capsized cruise ship off Italy - the man is aged 52, a retired Env Health Official.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...6.html?via=rel

Retired at aged 52, on a cruise.

If he lives to 82, that's 30 yrs + of pensions to be paid. Costly.

Jeez imagine what the state would have saved if that man was unfortunate enough to lose his life.This is surely a new low for the anti-PS brigade.

doc_17

Unfortunately too many can retire too early. When PS pay is cut again (and it will be) the pensions of PS workers should also be cut in line with this.

In fact it's a bit of a joke that they weren't cut in line with PS pay cuts in the 2010 budget.

sarumite

largepants wrote: »

Jeez imagine what the state would have saved if that man was unfortunate enough to lose his life.This is surely a new low for the anti-PS brigade.

Nice bit of knee-jerkery there.

sarumite

doc_17 wrote: »

Unfortunately too many can retire too early. When PS pay is cut again (and it will be) the pensions of PS workers should also be cut in line with this.

In fact it's a bit of a joke that they weren't cut in line with PS pay cuts in the 2010 budget.

The problem is that the government will, no doubt at the behest of PS unions, make an across the board cut to PS paycut rather than cut those who are overpaid and increase the pay of those who are underpaid etc. Its seems 'ham-fisted' is the government mantra when it comes to making cuts these days.

HellFireClub

RichardAnd wrote: »

No it isn't. Most public servants retire at 60 and that only applies to those hired before 1995.

60 is still 5 years shy of the retirement age of 65 applied to the vast majority of workers in the private sector.

Sponge Bob

n97 mini wrote: »

] €62k (average Garda pension according to CSO)

The average garda pension is nowhere near 62k and you obviously could not find a link to that could you.

kippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

60 is still 5 years shy of the retirement age of 65 applied to the vast majority of workers in the private sector.

65 is the age at which almost anyone who joined the PS since 1995 is able to get their full pension at.
Essentially you can "retire" any time you want, but unless you are 65 you wont get the COAP portion of the pensions and unless you have worked 40 years you wont be getting a full pension.

Pensions in this country are in general all wrong, it would be better that every citizen had a decent pension instead of this demand by a lot (on this forum) that we use the lowest common denominator as the benchmark)

HellFireClub

kippy wrote: »

65 is the age at which almost anyone who joined the PS since 1995 is able to get their full pension at.
Essentially you can "retire" any time you want, but unless you are 65 you wont get the COAP portion of the pensions and unless you have worked 40 years you wont be getting a full pension.

Pensions in this country are in general all wrong, it would be better that every citizen had a decent pension instead of this demand by a lot (on this forum) that we use the lowest common denominator as the benchmark)

But if you are in the private sector, you make your contributions into your pension fund over your working life, (your employer will typically make a generous contribution), and when you retire, you look at what is in your pension pot and you decide how much of it you want in an up front lump sum, in the accepted knowledge that if you take a lump sum, you are reducing the amount available to you for subsequent pension payments on a weekly or monthly basis. It's an "either-or" scenario, or at least it is for most people who are in DB private pension schemes.

But in the public sector, the approach is not correct, as in that the overly generous entitlements and the benefits are agreed at the beginning of the employment contract, as opposed to what I would argue is the proper and correct way of doing it on behalf of the taxpayers, which is that you examine what you have collected in your pension fund at the end of your working life, and that is what is available to you to play with, and you decide how much of that fund you wish to take in a lump sum and how much you wish to take in regular payments.

At the present, our government will give you both though without a question, and the very considerable difference between what you have contributed and what you are getting back, is put onto the backs of taxpayers!

kippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

But if you are in the private sector, you make your contributions into your pension fund over your working life, (your employer will typically make a generous contribution), and when you retire, you look at what is in your pension pot and you decide how much of it you want in an up front lump sum, in the accepted knowledge that if you take a lump sum, you are reducing the amount available to you for subsequent pension payments on a weekly or monthly basis. It's an "either-or" scenario, or at least it is for most people who are in DB private pension schemes.

But in the public sector, the approach is not correct, as in that the overly generous entitlements and the benefits are agreed at the beginning of the employment contract, as opposed to what I would argue is the proper and correct way of doing it on behalf of the taxpayers, which is that you examine what you have collected in your pension fund at the end of your working life, and that is what is available to you to play with, and you decide how much of that fund you wish to take in a lump sum and how much you wish to take in regular payments.

At the present, our government will give you both though without a question, and the very considerable difference between what you have contributed and what you are getting back, is put onto the backs of taxpayers!

The without question part is where you are wrong. There have been significant changes to the pension arrangements of serving civil servants and even bigger changes to any new entrants to the scheme. People who have joined the service in the past few years (0-10) will have paid significently more towards their pensions than those who have and are retiring in the past 10 years - this could be measured on a sliding scale.
I've a number of posts on this site outlining the amount of money that a public service worker puts into their pension pot and also highlighted a number of areas where people are completely misinformed on public service pensions (These would predominantly be the employer contributions and the COAP)
As mentioned above, if pensions were just something you put money into and got out at a later date, what would make them any different from a savings fund? One should expect to get more out than what they themselves put in (if only the more is the employer contribution)

The biggest issue I have with public sector pensions are that:
1. There is no opt out. I realise that many people wonder why would you want to opt out of a "gold plated" scheme like it but the reality of the situation is that people in the 20-30 age group or indeed other age groups may need that significant portion of money that is going into their pension NOW as opposed to some unknown time in the future for a scheme that is getting eroded by the year. Indeed there are many workers at lower levels of income in the public sector who pensions wont be much more than 100-200 euros a week on top of the COAP - which every working person gets anyway. Perhaps they'd rather invest into their own pension....
2. The lump sum SHOULD be taxable and indeed capped at 100K.
3. The final pension pot should be averaged over the entire career (which is happening for new entrants)
4. Certain pensions (politicians notably) should not be allowed to draw down "political pensions" when they have only worked for 2-3 years in political roles. Again, I would argue point 3 be applied to them.

(Tax payers by the way, also include public sector workers)