Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

sharper

Godge wrote: »

What happens the 6.5% superannuation contribution made by public servants every year?

Either

(1) It partly funds the NPRF, which we should then all accept that the public sector pension fund was raided to save the private sector banks

Your conclusion does not follow your premise.

The contribution you make goes to the exchequer. There is no public sector pension fund to raid.

You have no special claim either to the funds that comprise the NPRF nor to its usage.

This is a simple continuation of the public sector attitude that assets of the state are rightfully theirs. Assets of the state are assets of all citizens and are funded by all taxpayers.

"Your" fund was not raided because it was not "your" fund, it was the taxpayers fund paid for by taxpayers for the benefit of all citizens.

Now let's counterpoint this with what a real pension fund raid looks like

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6830

A stamp duty levy of 0.6% will be applied to the market value of assets under management in pension funds and pension plans approved under Irish tax legislation (occupational pension schemes, Retirement Annuity Contracts and Personal Retirement Savings Accounts).
· The value of theassets would be determined as at 1 January 2011, or on the last date of the accounting period ending in the twelve months preceding that date.
· The scheme will operate for a period of 4 years (2011 to 2014) with a view to raising yields of c. €470 million each year.

Funds financed entirely by individuals for their exclusive benefit in retirement had close to €2bn taken from them over 4 years. This is in addition to anything they lost due to market turmoil.

Jawgap

You'll just have to take my word the payslips are genuine - sorry, but that's as much as I'm willing to post up in a public forum.

My salary is linked to the AP grade - if the AP salary goes up or down so does my gross, notional salary- and I knew that when I 'hopped the fence' into the PS. I don't have an issue with that at all - if I wanted a private sector salary, I'd have stayed there.

My issue is with items that are normally provided by the employer (whether public or private) are now being charged for. I don't expect (and never have) the public purse to pay for some private sector perks I'd get if I was working there such as a car, health insurance, bonuses and other frivolities such as gym membership.

I do expect that agreed professional conditions will be met, especially when they are comparable to conditions in outside organisations and they benefit the employer.

For example, indemnity insurance as it minimises the financial risk to the employer (and me) if I cock up.

.....subscriptions to professional journals (we now only subscribe to a single online service, and it's not even the best one).

.....some paid-for training and professional development - this was withdrawn two years ago and last year we were told no time off would be given for professional development training. Any training I've done in the last 12 months has been paid for out of my own pockets and taken on my own time, even though the employer clearly benefits from having educated staff with up to date knowledge.

Still for all that, I'm not inclined to go wholly private again - being a gamekeeper is more interesting and personally worthwhile than being a poacher!

Godge

sharper wrote: »

Your conclusion does not follow your premise.

The contribution you make goes to the exchequer. There is no public sector pension fund to raid.

You have no special claim either to the funds that comprise the NPRF nor to its usage.

This is a simple continuation of the public sector attitude that assets of the state are rightfully theirs. Assets of the state are assets of all citizens and are funded by all taxpayers.

"Your" fund was not raided because it was not "your" fund, it was the taxpayers fund paid for by taxpayers for the benefit of all citizens.

Now let's counterpoint this with what a real pension fund raid looks like

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6830



Funds financed entirely by individuals for their exclusive benefit in retirement had close to €2bn taken from them over 4 years. This is in addition to anything they lost due to market turmoil.

I didn't draw a conclusion. I pointed out the two alternatives available for the destination of the 6.5% superannuation contribution. You obviously strongly disagree with the first option. I have no problem with that, your choice.

BTW, I make no contribution to any public service superannuation scheme. Can people not get it into their head that you do not have to be a public servant to defend the public service?

Godge wrote: »

What happens the 6.5% superannuation contribution made by public servants every year?

Either

(1) It partly funds the NPRF, which we should then all accept that the public sector pension fund was raided to save the private sector banks

0r

(2) It funds the current pensions of public servants, in which case when looking at the cost of the public service, we should only look at pay costs plus the pensions not funded by the 6.5% contribution.

Which do you pick?

I take it you are going with (2) which I will try to remember for future debates about the size of the public service pay and pensions bill.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

I didn't draw a conclusion.

Yes you did. You presented two "options" which formed invalid conclusions from their respective premises.

The public service pays tax to the exchequer which goes into the general fund. It has no special claim on any usage of those funds beyond that of any citizen of taxpayer.

A person paying road tax has no special claim to the road network or anything else either.

I take it you are going with (2) which I will try to remember for future debates about the size of the public service pay and pensions bill.

The public sector pension bill is an funded liability for the taxpayer, it is not limited to the public sector. I am more than happy for the public sector to fund its own pension costs but strangely public sector workers are not.

creedp

sharper wrote: »

Yes you did. You presented two "options" which formed invalid conclusions from their respective premises.

The public service pays tax to the exchequer which goes into the general fund. It has no special claim on any usage of those funds beyond that of any citizen of taxpayer.

A person paying road tax has no special claim to the road network or anything else either.



The public sector pension bill is an funded liability for the taxpayer, it is not limited to the public sector. I am more than happy for the public sector to fund its own pension costs but strangely public sector workers are not.

So all deductions from PS salaries are 'owned' by private sector taxpayers! PS should just earn a salary for providing public services to Irish citizens both public and private and then turn around and hand over a proportion of this salary to its private sector customers who may decide on a benveolent day to throw a few coins in the PS direction when it comes to pensions etc. These generous taxpayers are even proving free services to the PS, such as public hospital service, child benefit - they can even sit on the same bus - the gravy train never ends!


I wonder if all salaries of private sectors workers are also equally 'owned' by their customers. Maybe the same custoners should put in a claim for a slice of this fund.

I know some contributors on here seem to get great enjoyment from fantasizing on the exercie of their power to control what happens to PS - after all they are the wealth creators and its their taxes that is paying PS wages as well as keeping the country afloat. Frankly its wearing a bit thin at this stage (300 pages plus)

sharper

creedp wrote: »

So all deductions from PS salaries are 'owned' by private sector taxpayers!

Everything going to the exchequer is owned by all citizens of the state. Please learn the basics of governance before commenting further.

Godge

sharper wrote: »

Yes you did. You presented two "options" which formed invalid conclusions from their respective premises.

The public service pays tax to the exchequer which goes into the general fund. It has no special claim on any usage of those funds beyond that of any citizen of taxpayer.

A person paying road tax has no special claim to the road network or anything else either.



The public sector pension bill is an funded liability for the taxpayer, it is not limited to the public sector. I am more than happy for the public sector to fund its own pension costs but strangely public sector workers are not.

sharper wrote: »

Everything going to the exchequer is owned by all citizens of the state. Please learn the basics of governance before commenting further.

I wasn't talking about tax, I was talking about superannuation deductions.

It is really funny now that people are treating superannuation deductions of 6.5% as being tax paid by public servants.

Can you explain to me the difference between the 5% superannuation deduction for the main scheme and the 1.5% deduction for the spouses and children scheme? Are these both taxes going into the general fund? Why are they separately calculated?

I have fully accepted your view (for the point of this discussion) that the NPRF does not belong to the public sector, you actually need to accept that the 6.5% paid in by public servants for superannuation (not a tax because it is not generally applicable to everyone) must go on something and that something is current pensions meaning the real pay and pensions bill is much less.

It is now getting to the stage that if the public service pay and pension bill cost €20bn but was subject to a 100% public servants tax and the public servants were treated as slaves and given bread and water, there would still be people on here complaining that the private sector taxpayer was funding a €20bn extravaganza to keep public servants in luxury and they would keep pointing at the €20bn bill when doing so and ignore the 100% tax.

It is beyond a joke.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

I wasn't talking about tax, I was talking about superannuation deductions.

It is really funny now that people are treating superannuation deductions of 6.5% as being tax paid by public servants.

Can you explain to me the difference between the 5% superannuation deduction for the main scheme and the 1.5% deduction for the spouses and children scheme? Are these both taxes going into the general fund? Why are they separately calculated?

You can use whatever word for it you want but my understanding is that all pension related payments go into the general fund. Some of those payments buy special benefits in the future (the comptroller report refers to vote buying in the context of the fund vote but I don't know the technicalities of it).

It is now getting to the stage that if the public service pay and pension bill cost €20bn but was subject to a 100% public servants tax and the public servants were treated as slaves and given bread and water, there would still be people on here complaining that the private sector taxpayer was funding a €20bn extravaganza to keep public servants in luxury and they would keep pointing at the €20bn bill when doing so and ignore the 100% tax.

I have no idea where you're getting this from. Statements have been made regarding "our pension fund" in the context of the public sector pension which actually an asset of the state funded by state assets and the taxpayer.

I take issue with the appropriation of state assets by the public sector.

Godge

sharper wrote: »

You can use whatever word for it you want but my understanding is that all pension related payments go into the general fund. Some of those payments buy special benefits in the future (the comptroller report refers to vote buying in the context of the fund vote but I don't know the technicalities of it).



I have no idea where you're getting this from. Statements have been made regarding "our pension fund" in the context of the public sector pension which actually an asset of the state funded by state assets and the taxpayer.

I take issue with the appropriation of state assets by the public sector.

I never called it "our pension fund" so take that issue elsewhere.

My point is that the superannuation deductions are only paid by public servants and are going somewhere. On the premise that they are going to pay current pensions (or even elsewhere) it means that the cost of the public sector pay and pensions bill to private sector taxpayers is another 6.5% of pay cheaper than previously stated.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

I never called it "our pension fund" so take that issue elsewhere.

It is the discussion you are replying to and the context in which I'm speaking, it's unreasonable to change that context and then try to present me as saying things I am not.

My point is that the superannuation deductions are only paid by public servants and are going somewhere.

As far as I know they are going to the exchequer and used to fund day to day spending.

it means that the cost of the public sector pay and pensions bill to private sector taxpayers is another 6.5% of pay cheaper than previously stated.

6.5% cheaper than what? It's known the public sector pay bill is less than the gross figure since all taxes go right back to the government.

As long as the figure used is consistent over time there's no issue - compare gross with gross and whatever else with whatever else.

You can make almost precisely the same argument in relation to social welfare, most money paid out is used within the domestic economy and goes back to the government via taxes.

Godge

sharper wrote: »

You can make almost precisely the same argument in relation to social welfare, most money paid out is used within the domestic economy and goes back to the government via taxes.

No you cannot make the same argument.

Approximately 50% of all public service pay goes directly back to the government through direct taxes such as PAYE, PRSI, USC, Pension Levy, Superannuation Deductions etc.

There is no direct tax on child benefit for example.

You could make the same argument in respect of indirect taxes but that is only a part of the story.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

No you cannot make the same argument.

I said you can make a similar argument, not the same argument.

Approximately 50% of all public service pay goes directly back to the government through direct taxes such as PAYE, PRSI, USC, Pension Levy, Superannuation Deductions etc.

Where are you getting this 50% number from?

There is no direct tax on child benefit for example.

You could make the same argument in respect of indirect taxes but that is only a part of the story.

Direct versus indirect taxation only complicates the calculation, the basic remains the same - that a significant amount of what's paid out comes back in tax therefore it's not "really" as expensive as it appears.

Where are you even going with this? Why have you produced this tangent off the NPRF discussion?

woodoo

Good loser wrote: »

The Daniel McConnell article in today's Sunday Independant gives an accurate summary of the deal imo - essentially another supine capitulation by a political class devoid of moral courage. FFS they barely touched increments and overtime rates are unchanged and most cuts have a timetable for reversal.

His article was a pile of old rubbish from what i remember.

creedp

sharper wrote: »

Everything going to the exchequer is owned by all citizens of the state. Please learn the basics of governance before commenting further.

I suppose in the same was as a private sector worker paying PRSI is not entitled to unemployment benefit or a contributory OAP. He justs pays his contribution or his employer pays it on his behalf and then he sees what the all powerful taxpayer, whoever/whatever that might be decide what he's entiteld to. I think a problem is that one side thinks it has the monopoly over what another is entitled to.

Carry on though it still makes interesting reading and Im mightily impressed with both your expertise and stamina at repeating the same old tired mantra. I see your also moving into the mod game .. probably be just as impressive in that role.

creedp

sharper wrote: »

I said you can make a similar argument, not the same argument.

You can make almost precisely the same argument in relation to social welfare, most money paid out is used within the domestic economy and goes back to the government via taxes.

Splitting hairs aren't you .. almost precisely the same is not the same as the same but more accurately describes being similar

sharper

creedp wrote: »

I think a problem is that one side thinks it has the monopoly over what another is entitled to.

No it doesn't, there are facts concerning what people are entitled to and entitlements the public sector wants to invent for itself.

People paying PRSI receive certain entitlements in relation to the amount they pay. You will note that over the last few years the amount people pay in PRSI has increased while the benefits they receive have decreased.

The public sector has no special entitlement to the NPRF however you much appear to wish they did. The public sector did not fund it, the tax payer did.

sharper

creedp wrote: »

Splitting hairs aren't you .. almost precisely the same is not the same as the same but more accurately describes being similar

No it isn't splitting hairs. I said they were similar arguments in that they share the same premise. Godge attempted to show I was wrong by first claiming I said they were the same (i.e. they had no distinction) and then tried to prove the strawman he erected wrong by bringing up a distinction.

I have shown that the distinction is immaterial to the argument and consequently the argument that they are similar holds.

English is a useful language.

Fizzical

sharper wrote: »

The public sector has no special entitlement to the NPRF however you much appear to wish they did. The public sector did not fund it, the tax payer did.

You're being disingenuous. Your latter statement is irrelevant. Less of the red herrings, please.

The National Pensions Reserve Fund was established in April 2001 to meet as much as possible of the costs of Ireland's social welfare and public service pensions from 2025 onwards, when these costs are projected to increase dramatically due to the ageing of the population.

sharper

Fizzical wrote: »

You're being disingenuous. Your latter statement is irrelevant. Less of the red herrings, please.

Are you reading this thread at all? That was posted at the very start of the exchange. Here let me bold the important bit for you

The National Pensions Reserve Fund was established in April 2001 to meet as much as possible of the costs of Ireland's social welfare and public service pensions from 2025 onwards, when these costs are projected to increase dramatically due to the ageing of the population.

In other words, the statutory old age pension.

The NPRF was established by the taxpayer to meet the state pension needs of all citizens. It is not the public sector's fund.

It's absolutely astounding how much this has to be pointed out.

Fizzical

sharper wrote: »

Are you reading this thread at all? That was posted at the very start of the exchange.

Sorry. Some people have to work.

In other words, the statutory old age pension.

The NPRF was established by the taxpayer to meet the state pension needs of all citizens. It is not the public sector's fund.

It's absolutely astounding how much this has to be pointed out.

Don't be ridiculous. Try reading it yourself - and public service pensions - then maybe you won't be so astounded.

sharper

Fizzical wrote: »

Sorry. Some people have to work.

If you haven't read the thread you should perhaps consider caution when labelling others disingenuous.

Don't be ridiculous. Try reading it yourself - and public service pensions - then maybe you won't be so astounded.

Again you are failing to read the discussion. I have not disputed that the intention of the NPRF includes public service pensions however it is not exclusive to it. Furthermore public servants have made no special or exclusive contribution to it.

Therefore it fails all possible tests by which it could be described to belong to the public sector.

andymann

The Government's lack of courage is pathetic. I am a young person, and with the amount spent on our public sector every year , due to exhorbitant wages and pensions the younger generations will have to pay for their lives. I for one won't pay these blue chip pensions, and remember where your money comes from at the end of the day.

Gryire

Jawgap wrote: »

something which many public servants have no problem with - there is nothing as galling as seeing an under-worked wastrel get the same salary as you (or promoted to 'get rid' of them), when you're busting a nut to do a good job. However, the need for a proper redundancy scheme extends throughout the PS, beyond the top end.

Senior managers should be on 3 to 5 year, renewable contracts - if they don't perform, off they go. I'd even go as far to say anyone at AP and above (including myself) should be on a maximum 5 year contract.

there also needs to be a compulsory redeployment scheme - you go where the work is, and if it doesn't suit then - unfortunately - you go the redundancy route.

The problem is we lack both the politicians with the will, and the senior managers with the imagination to implement such a programme.

We could even take a leaf out of the Brits' book and start a programme of mutualisation of services to improve service delivery and reduce costs.

But the unions that are funded by the public service will not allow this to happen. This is the reason why pay cuts should happen. Either have meaningful reform and eliminate wastage or reduce the pay for everybody.

Fizzical

sharper wrote: »

If you haven't read the thread you should perhaps consider caution when labelling others disingenuous.

You should be able to recognise sarcasm. You use it often enough.

Therefore it fails all possible tests by which it could be described to belong to the public sector.

No one said it belongs to the public sector, no more than anyone said that the public sector is entitled to it. It is, however, for the public sector.

Needs to try harder

sharper

Fizzical wrote: »

No one said it belongs to the public sector, no more than anyone said that the public sector is entitled to it. It is, however, for the public sector.

You haven't read the discussion and now you're making statements about what was or was not said.

Amazing.

creedp

Gryire wrote: »

But the unions that are funded by the public service will not allow this to happen. This is the reason why pay cuts should happen. Either have meaningful reform and eliminate wastage or reduce the pay for everybody.

Isn't this the thing though .. those who are looking for CP2 to happen and criticing some PS for not wanting to agree with it - are supporting something which will protect the core pay of the majority of the PS. Its difficult to understand why these same people aren't baying for the Govt to cast CP2 aside and introduce legislation to cut pay more generally.

Godge

sharper wrote: »

No it doesn't, there are facts concerning what people are entitled to and entitlements the public sector wants to invent for itself.

People paying PRSI receive certain entitlements in relation to the amount they pay. You will note that over the last few years the amount people pay in PRSI has increased while the benefits they receive have decreased.
.

sharper wrote: »

Everything going to the exchequer is owned by all citizens of the state. Please learn the basics of governance before commenting further.

sharper wrote: »

You can use whatever word for it you want but my understanding is that all pension related payments go into the general fund. Some of those payments buy special benefits in the future (the comptroller report refers to vote buying in the context of the fund vote but I don't know the technicalities of it).



I have no idea where you're getting this from. Statements have been made regarding "our pension fund" in the context of the public sector pension which actually an asset of the state funded by state assets and the taxpayer.

I take issue with the appropriation of state assets by the public sector.

Ok, private sector people paying PRSI have entitlements because of what they pay in PRSI but all money belongs to all citizens but public servants have no entitlements based on their superannuation contributions but go into the general fund and can therefore be used to pay your student grant but the pensions are funded by the taxpayer.

I am getting dizzy here.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

public servants have no entitlements based on their superannuation contributions

I did not claim this. Clearly public servants have whatever entitlements they obtain from their employment contract and other agreements.

However once they pay money to the exchequer they have no special claim regarding exchequer activities beyond any other taxpayer or citizen.

Thus public servants have no special claim on the NPRF. They cannot claim money removed from it was "theirs".

Godge

sharper wrote: »

I did not claim this. Clearly public servants have whatever entitlements they obtain from their employment contract and other agreements.

However once they pay money to the exchequer they have no special claim regarding exchequer activities beyond any other taxpayer or citizen.

Thus public servants have no special claim on the NPRF. They cannot claim money removed from it was "theirs".

You keep forgetting that I accepted your point on the NPRF for the purposes of this discussion. The debate then moved on to the implications of that for the superannuation contributions and where they go. If the pensions are not funded by the NPRF and are funded on an ongoing basis, the cost of public sector pensions should therefore be net of superannuation contributions. Agreed?

sharper

Godge wrote: »

If the pensions are not funded by the NPRF and are funded on an ongoing basis, the cost of public sector pensions should therefore be net of superannuation contributions. Agreed?

No I don't agree, there is zero relationship between superannuation payments being made today and pension expenses today. A euro paid in superannuation can just as easily be spent on road construction or buying pens for an office somewhere.

As stated above if you want to try and calculate net costs of government spending this is not a novel argument but you also have to apply it to other areas of government spending.