CSO report on public-private pay gap

frankosw

Tipp Man wrote: »

why don't they just axe the public sector defined benefit pension (obviously they would keep what they currently have), axe the pension levy and let the workers look after their own pension

Suits me.

I'm under no illusions that i'll retire on the sort of pensions being seen now..the pension fund has already been plundered to pay the dole,the banks,overseas aid,asylum seekers and other forbidden topics that affect the countries finances.

itzme

Tipp Man wrote: »

why don't they just axe the public sector defined benefit pension (obviously they would keep what they currently have), axe the pension levy and let the workers look after their own pension

Treating this point seriously it would seem obvious to me.
The current PS pensioners are being paid by the current PS pension contributions, there isn't enough in the pension pot for them. So if they axed the public service pension, they would first have to give all contributions back to those that have been paying and then they would have to find money to fund the current pensioners.
Not saying its not a bad idea but it would take a couple of years to implement (if its possible that is)

K-9

Tipp Man wrote: »

why don't they just axe the public sector defined benefit pension (obviously they would keep what they currently have), axe the pension levy and let the workers look after their own pension

Its an option I suppose, you also have the issue of the state pension which is underfunded by both public and private sector workers though.

tayto lover

Tipp Man wrote: »

why don't they just axe the public sector defined benefit pension (obviously they would keep what they currently have), axe the pension levy and let the workers look after their own pension

Yes and also stop the grants the farmers get. These people are the real "entitled" but only contribute .9% of the entire tax take which is disgraceful. Not even 1%.
There are too many depending on the taxes paid by too few.

not yet

Just to try clear this up, My gross weekly pay is 940e from that I pay 189e in pension contribution and superannuation ect. 189 x 52 = 9828 x by 40 years service is 393,120. Thats what people pay, end of.

fliball123

K-9 wrote: »

I'll look after my own pension seeing as I'm private sector but as others and me have pointed out, they do pay a significant portion towards pensions, not the 7% you tried to make out. That's one error you've been corrected on so I'll expect not to see it repeated again.

The pension issue is a major issue, not just with the public sector, the pension levy goes in some way to help with for the future. I'd say they'll be asked to pay more and private sector workers will be asked for a compulsory deduction, but that's a Government policy decision.

A significant potion and the other significant potion is asked of the tax payer who many in the private sector cant afford their own...but should feel good bout themselves as they contribute to the thousands and thousands of current and future public sector pensions...

Jaysoose

not yet wrote: »

Just to try clear this up, My gross weekly pay is 940e from that I pay 189e in pension contribution and superannuation ect. 189 x 52 = 9828 x by 40 years service is 393,120. That what people pay end of.

So your pay rate will never increase? your figures need to be adjusted for inflation, increments etc.

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Aib.

Bailed out by the taxpayers and still paying bonuses top senior staff.

Owned by the taxpayer but its obvious that the tax payer have no say in this, last i head the banks are cutting back on staff...Dont get me wrong I dont agree with what these greedy fcuks are doing but they are now state owned hardly private sector now are they

Head The Wall

not yet wrote: »

The 7% pay cut was in effect reverse benchmarking....then again thats noyt good enough for some people, the same people who would have PS workers pay cut by 40% as I've read on these forums.

If it hasn't brought the wage down to the comparable current private sector level well then it is not enough. If you get paid 40% more than you should then a serious cut is needed.

not yet wrote: »

Just to try clear this up, My gross weekly pay is 940e from that I pay 189e in pension contribution and superannuation ect. 189 x 52 = 9828 x by 40 years service is 393,120. That what people pay end of.

So your first year of work you earned 48k, the very same as your finishing salary will be. You do not pay that kind of money, should you even get paid that wage by the taxpayers if that is your grasp on numbers. The mind boggles

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

The usual pension contribution for a PS worker is in the region of 15%.

Anybody hired after 1996 must pay this and has no choice in the matter.


This is in addition to prsi that they also pay.

Can you show me evidence that this will cover the cost of their pensions...?

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

The 7% pay cut was in effect reverse benchmarking....then again thats noyt good enough for some people, the same people who would have PS workers pay cut by 40% as I've read on these forums.

Sorry it may be in money terms a reverse..but they never bothered measuring again against the private sector which since 2008 has been decimated..a third round of benchmarking is badly needed in this country in order to get the public finances we spend of pUblic sector pay and pensions back under control...It has spiraled out of control in the last decade

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

Can you show me evidence that this will cover the cost of their pensions...?

obviously each individual case is different

as an example, ignoring inflation

someone who joined post april 1995 and retires on, say €50,000 on full 40 years service

will get (a) the state pension - currently around €12,000

(b) an occupational pension of €13,000

(c) lump sum of €75,000

so they will have paid 40 years PRSI for the state pensions

and 15 years of around 8% contribution and 25 years contributions at around 14% for the rest


basically post 95 entrants are paying around 20-25% of salary, notionally towards their pension


people who joined after 2011 will have the same system althought the pension and lum sum is based on an average earning rather than final salary which will reduce the figures.

Farmer Pudsey

Lets look at the cost of a PS pension's.

To do a simple calculation lets assume that any rise in the value of the fund will be negated by the general pay rises ( not increments or promotions) that a PS recieve throughout there working life. We will also ignore that public servants because of the socio economic group have a higher life expectancy the other sections of society.
We will assume that this low paid CS retires on 40k with apension of 20K after 40 years. Let there average earning be 33k so at 12% this gives a fund of 158K. Now from the pension we disregard the OAP leaving a pension difference of 7.5K. However we have to take away 60K for there retirement lump sum (it may be even higher as OTis not pension calculated) this leaves less than 100K to buy a grauity whick at present are in the region of 5%( for someone at 60) I think. So even relativeing low paid PS's will recieve a pension more than they contribute.

However the real issue is higher paid people in the PS some of these will retire on pension way in excess of 25k. For ever 5K in pension the will also recieve a lumpsum of 7.5K maybe costing them 30-40K again I am assuming that they recieve large pay rises in the last 10 years of service which is often the case even if they did not and were on fairy stabe pay rates it would only cost 50K/10k pensionable pay.

This is going to be a huge issue ''going forward'' as Brien Cowen would say sitting happily on his nice pension pot. At presen some CS can retire after 30 years service in there fifties and most can retire at 60 with 40 years being full service. While a OAP will have to average over is 40 weeks insurable income to recieve the OAP which again the PS will score on as they will be paying PRSI for 52 weeks/year.

Tipp Man

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes and also stop the grants the farmers get. These people are the real "entitled" but only contribute .9% of the entire tax take which is disgraceful. Not even 1%.
There are too many depending on the taxes paid by too few.

Can you provide a source for this .9% please

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

Dont get me wrong I dont agree with what these greedy fcuks are doing but they are now state owned hardly private sector now are they

Yes,the banks are private sector..they are registered as public limited companies...they are driven by profits and have a board of directors.

Do you actually have trouble telling the difference between public and private anymore in your haste to vent spleen on PS workers?

Riskymove

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

lets assume that any rise in the value of the fund will be negated by the general pay rises

there is no fund

(it may be even higher as OTis not pension calculated)

? OT doesn't increase your lump sum either

Let there average earning be 33k so at 12% this gives a fund of 158K. Now from the pension we disregard the OAP leaving a pension difference of 7.5K. However we have to take away 60K for there retirement lump sum this leaves less than 100K to buy a grauity whick at present are in the region of 5%( for someone at 60) I think. So even relativeing low paid PS's will recieve a pension more than they contribute.

its 20% contribution since 2011


this example would compare to a fund of €98,000 paying out €7,500 ayear so would be 13 years before deficit?

Late 70s - around average lifspan i would have thought

However the real issue is higher paid people in the PS some of these will retire on pension way in excess of 25k.

well of course, although obviously the more they earn the larger their contributions

two thirds of PS earn less than €60

At presen some CS can retire after 30 years service in there fifties and most can retire at 60 with 40 years being full service

Nope; only guards can do this Ithink?

While a OAP will have to average over is 40 weeks insurable income to recieve the OAP which again the PS will score on as they will be paying PRSI for 52 weeks/year.

anyone working full time, pays PRSI 52 weeks, not sure what your point is

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

A significant potion and the other significant potion is asked of the tax payer who many in the private sector cant afford their own...

Can they not get a better job then?

In my experience "many in the private sector" can afford thier own pensions but they just dont bother setting one up and would rather have the money in thier pocket.

How many builders making upwards of 1000 euro a day put some money by for a pension?

If they didnt its nobody else's fault..i would rather have teh extra 15% in my pocket too but as a PS worker i have no choice...and this isnt contributing to a lavish pension in 25 years time,its nothing more that another form of sector-specific taxation.

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

obviously each individual case is different

as an example, ignoring inflation

someone who joined post april 1995 and retires on, say €50,000 on full 40 years service

will get (a) the state pension - currently around €12,000

(b) an occupational pension of €13,000

(c) lump sum of €75,000

so they will have paid 40 years PRSI for the state pensions

and 15 years of around 8% contribution and 25 years contributions at around 14% for the rest


basically post 95 entrants are paying around 20-25% of salary, notionally towards their pension


people who joined after 2011 will have the same system althought the pension and lum sum is based on an average earning rather than final salary which will reduce the figures.

I accept some do pay what they get out..but on a whole does the current ps pension levys and other pension contributions cover all future pensions coming from the ps..No it doesnt..where is the deficit got from ?? The tax payer...until everyone is paying in what they get out and not getting subsidised there is going to be an issue with this with me and the majority or of other tax payers

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Yes,the banks are private sector..they are registered as public limited companies...they are driven by profits and have a board of directors.

Do you actually have trouble telling the difference between public and private anymore in your haste to vent spleen on PS workers?

And owned by the state...or partly owned by the state...did you not hear the tax payer actually took stakes in all domestic banks when we bailed them out..there fore it is not a typical private company as if it were the tax payer would have more of a say on how it does business

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

..but on a whole does the current ps pension levys and other pension contributions cover all future pensions coming from the ps..No it doesnt..where is the deficit got from ?? The tax payer...

It is a very important issue and it should concern all employees PS or private, however, there is no fund and therefore there is no fund deficit as such

pensions are paid from current funds each year so really its about what do exisiting PS pay per annum in terms of levys, contributions, prsi and tax?

and what do the PS pensions cost per annum?

a number of measures have been taken to reduce the future costs:

pay cut
pension levy
average instead of final salary
increased retirement age
reduction in numbers

and so on.


I am sure more measures will be taken in the future

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Can they not get a better job then?

In my experience "many in the private sector" can afford thier own pensions but they just dont bother setting one up and would rather have the money in thier pocket.

How many builders making upwards of 1000 euro a day put some money by for a pension?

If they didnt its nobody else's fault..i would rather have teh extra 15% in my pocket too but as a PS worker i have no choice...and this isnt contributing to a lavish pension in 25 years time,its nothing more that another form of sector-specific taxation.

Only a person working in the protected realm of the public sector would ask can they not get a better job...their are very few jobs out there..have a look at the emigration numbers and get back to me..Yeah you tell me how many builders presently are making upwards of 1000 a day in this day and age..the point still stands on average people on current and future pensions the majority will have the tax payers paying for some of their pensions

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

And owned by the state...or partly owned by the state...did you not hear the tax payer actually took stakes in all domestic banks when we bailed them out..there fore it is not a typical private company as if it were the tax payer would have more of a say on how it does business

they are private companies whose majority shareholder is the state; thats very different to being state run

Bank managemnt decisions are still privately operated

Farmer Pudsey

Riskymove wrote: »

there is no fund



1.? OT doesn't increase your lump sum either



2. its 20% contribution since 2011


3.this example would compare to a fund of €98,000 paying out €7,500 ayear so would be 13 years before deficit?

4. Late 70s - around average lifspan i would have thought



5. well of course, although obviously the more they earn the larger their contributions

6. two thirds of PS earn less than €60





7. Nope; only guards can do this Ithink?



8. anyone working full time, pays PRSI 52 weeks, not sure what your point is

Just dealing with your itty nitty picking I know there is no fund however I was replying to a earlier post where a low paid PS stated they would be beeter of not contributing.
1 OT increases the lump sum it is not calculated
for pension
2. I was replying to a quote od 12% for a low paid CS
3. It varies across the PS
4 In correct dependind on socio economic grouping it is higher and defined benifits scheme now take this into accound I believe that the banks etc are costing on higher lifespans of retiree's.
5 Most contributions increse only on promoyions/pay rires and as older CS retire on half pay the extra contribution sare minimal compared to benfits
6I presume 60K which is equivlent to 10-Kpension compared to a 40K salery
7Prision officers as well and maybe thers
8 you are not always fulltime in the private sector and may suffer terms of longterm unemployment as well as there that have to go to Canada/US for work at present. so interruption to stamps

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

Only a person working in the protected realm of the public sector would ask can they not get a better job...their are very few jobs out there..have a look at the emigration numbers and get back to me..Yeah you tell me how many builders presently are making upwards of 1000 a day in this day and age..the point still stands on average people on current and future pensions the majority will have the tax payers paying for some of their pensions

You're very fond of words like "majority" and "average" arent you?

I assume thats to mask your complete lack of real figures.

You also seem to forget that PS workers pay more tax thsan thier private sector counterparts in the form of pension contributions and pension levy...the PS *is* the taxpayer that you're constantly going on about.

Somebody on minimum wage pays little or no tax..in the private sector usually,somebody self employed pays whatever they feel like and hopes for the best...private sector again,Stubbs gazette is full of judgements against people who have defrauded the revenue commisioner and they're ALL private sector.

Anybody in the public sector gets thier tax deducted at source leaving no room for a spot of creative book-cooking and it was bankers,developers and builders that caused this bloody mess in teh first place and they for the most part have wriggled off the hook leaving the PS taxpayers to foot teh bill.

Farmer Pudsey

frankosw wrote: »

Can they not get a better job then?

In my experience "many in the private sector" can afford thier own pensions but they just dont bother setting one up and would rather have the money in thier pocket.

How many builders making upwards of 1000 euro a day put some money by for a pension?

If they didnt its nobody else's fault..i would rather have teh extra 15% in my pocket too but as a PS worker i have no choice...and this isnt contributing to a lavish pension in 25 years time,its nothing more that another form of sector-specific taxation.

fliball123 wrote: »

Only a person working in the protected realm of the public sector would ask can they not get a better job...their are very few jobs out there..have a look at the emigration numbers and get back to me..Yeah you tell me how many builders presently are making upwards of 1000 a day in this day and age..the point still stands on average people on current and future pensions the majority will have the tax payers paying for some of their pensions

Even in the heady days of the boom it was only a hand full of developers that were earning massive money. Now very few are. Even in the heady days when trademen were in demand only again a few big sub contractors made serious money. The average trademan employed add a basic of 1K-1100/week at most . Small self employed trades made in the region of 1.5-2.5K alot of young people got sucked into building work and wen on as General opertatives earning 5-700/week depending on location. In general these were young workers who had an easy come easy go attutide to money and it has ruined there employment prospects.

Most of these people wifes/girlfriends worked in solicitors/auctioneers offices or even got jobs in the PS. Yes some made money just like guards and othere teachers made money on OT or special payrise see the URL on a post of mine from late last evening and read it

not yet

Just a small point some people may find interesting......Their is 25 billion worth of business done on the black economy each year. Would you say these people pay towards pensions from that.

frankosw

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Just dealing with your itty nitty picking I know there is no fund however I was replying to a earlier post where a low paid PS stated they would be beeter of not contributing.
1 OT increases the lump sum it is not calculated
for pension
2. I was replying to a quote od 12% for a low paid CS
3. It varies across the PS
4 In correct dependind on socio economic grouping it is higher and defined benifits scheme now take this into accound I believe that the banks etc are costing on higher lifespans of retiree's.
5 Most contributions increse only on promoyions/pay rires and as older CS retire on half pay the extra contribution sare minimal compared to benfits
6I presume 60K which is equivlent to 10-Kpension compared to a 40K salery
7Prision officers as well and maybe thers
8 you are not always fulltime in the private sector and may suffer terms of longterm unemployment as well as there that have to go to Canada/US for work at present. so interruption to stamps

Without meaning to sound unpleasant you really are in no position to offer ecnonomic advice with that level of written English.

frankosw

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Even in the heady days of the boom it was only a hand full of developers that were earning massive money. Now very few are. Even in the heady days when trademen were in demand only again a few big sub contractors made serious money. The average trademan employed add a basic of 1K-1100/week at most . Small self employed trades made in the region of 1.5-2.5K alot of young people got sucked into building work and wen on as General opertatives earning 5-700/week depending on location. In general these were young workers who had an easy come easy go attutide to money and it has ruined there employment prospects.

Most of these people wifes/girlfriends worked in solicitors/auctioneers offices or even got jobs in the PS. Yes some made money just like guards and othere teachers made money on OT or special payrise see the URL on a post of mine from late last evening and read it

So what happened to the grand a week they were earning? Did they put it towards thier pensions? Fill out income tax returns or self assesment forms?

How much of that did builders pay in tax?

I knew of blokes i went to school with working cash in hand on building sites for 700 quid a week in the mid-1990's.....why were they paying no tax?

How many tradesmen now are tax compliant? Any work on my house i've had done in the last six months offered a cash in hand price or a "VAT inluded" price which differed substantially...some didnt even bother with the VAT included option and several wanted either cash or cheques made out to cash.

If you're worried about the state of teh irish economy at least make sure everybody is paying thier share and not just victimising public sector staff.

not yet

Most PS workers I know earn the average industrial wage,or slighty above.

For this wage they are on the whole dedicated, professional, have long service, and never earned huge money in the boom.

Are we now to go trough this sh1t for another 5 years about cut wages across the board. Yes, I know we are in a deep recession but for christ sake do people really want to smash the ordinary PS worker. I am the first to say something needs to be done about consultants earning 250k a year or County managers earning more then the spanish prime minister but a guy on 25-35k a year ?.........................

frankosw

not yet wrote: »

Most PS workers I know earn the average industrial wage,or slighty above.

For this wage they are on the whole dedicated, professional, have long service, and never earned huge money in the boom.

Are we now to go trough this sh1t for another 5 years about cut wages across the board. Yes, I know we are in a deep recession but for christ sake do people really want to smash the ordinary PS worker. I am the first to say something needs to be done about consultants earning 250k a year or County managers earning more then the spanish prime minister but a guy on 25-35k a year ?.........................

Somebody is gonna come on and tell you that the average Joe is earning 65k or somthing like that and that they are also earning 50% more than the same person(if they existed) in teh privsate sector.

There's a cliche for ever occasion round here.