Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Godge

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Point is the same though - whether it's €80Bn or €116Bn it's still a massive liability.

Hold on a minute. The current pensions bill is €2.5 billion per year, which we are managing to pay, albeit on borrowed money. What is the actuarial cost of that bill? Is it €20bn, €40bn, €65bn or €75bn? It is only if you compare the current bill per year to the future bill per year that you know whether the €80bn or the €116bn is unsustainable.

Nobody anywhere commenting on this, and I include decent economists as well as gombeen populist economists, has ever done a proper comparison. All people have done is wave around the €116bn which is an out-of-date figure.

Nobody seems to know what the current accurate figure is and how does it compare to the current annual bill being paid. So how can it be said that it is a massive liability.

You might as well say that if we are going to continue paying child benefit at the current rates and based on the current demographics that we are sitting on a child benefit timebomb of (let us make this up) €50 billion. The figure, if properly calculated would be both accurate and meaningless.

The difference in relation to pensions, is that by introducing the new pension scheme, the cost to the exchequer in the long run has been cut significantly and the cuts in pay and numbers have a similar effect.

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

I have availed of Public services in the past but in general I try not to use them as they are very poor IMO where as if I pay to do something privately the services is always better. But thats only my opinion. But I stand by the fact that services have been diminished, you cannot take the money out of services without it being hit whilst protecting pay and conditions of the work force behind it.

Have you ever had reason to call the gardai,or an ambulance?

I assume you sweep your own street and build your own roads too.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry any links to the private sector doing this..the worst were the banks which only accrue for 1/3 of our debt and deficit. The other 2/3s was on the continuing gravy train that is public sector pay and pensions and our welfare state. So get your facts right and I believe that the public servants let us down with regards to our banks, where were the regulators, politicians to say stop? and now we see the banks in a lot of trouble there wont be any pay rises for those boys in the near future but our country is borrowing 18 billion and the public sector still think it prudent to be giving themselves pay rises??

Are you sure that there are no pay rises in the banks? Last I heard their incremental scales were still in place and some staff were also getting individual pay rises.

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

and now we see the banks in a lot of trouble there wont be any pay rises for those boys in the near future

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0625/1224318628851.html

TOP US and European bankers, including Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and Vikram Pandit of Citigroup, have enjoyed annual pay rises averaging almost 12 per cent, despite widespread falls in profits and share prices, Financial Times research shows.
The news comes as concern on both sides of the Atlantic over chief executive pay levels has led to several high-profile investor revolts, including at Citi and Barclays, and as Europe’s leaders debate a cap on bank bonuses.
The analysis by Equilar, a US research group, of pay awarded to 15 bank chiefs shows they received an average 11.9 per cent pay rise last year to an average $12.8 million (€10.2 million), the second rise in a row. But the pace of growth has slowed.
Bankers such as Brian Moynihan at Bank of America, Mr Pandit and Mr Dimon enjoyed the largest gains. Mr Dimon, whose reputation as one of the best managers in banking has been hit by a $2 billion trading loss in a supposedly safe division of JP Morgan, topped the list for the second year in succession with a $23.1 million pay package that was 11 per cent higher.
The Equilar analysis added up base salaries, cash bonuses and certain other benefits. It also included option and stock awards granted in 2011, some of which rewarded performance in previous years. It shows that fixed salaries continue to rise while variable cash payments are sinking as regulators clamp down on bonuses. But average stock and option awards rose 22 per cent.
“Regulators try to prevent banks from taking the outsize risks that led to the financial crisis. But the problem is that shareholders still like outsize returns,” said Albert Laverge, Egon Zehnder’s global investment banking practice head.
Mr Pandit’s pay rose to $14.9 million after the $1 salary he took in the previous two years. He had pledged restraint until the bank returned to profitability, which it did in 2010.
His pay package, which ranks in the middle of the FT survey, sparked an investor revolt at Citigroup’s annual meeting in April which, in turn, triggered a shareholder uprising against executive pay levels in Europe and the US.
In Britain, Bob Diamond at Barclays came second in the survey with a $20.1 million pay package that was inflated by a £5.75 million (€7.13 million) tax bill that was paid by the bank.

sean200

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

It's difficult to give specifics since there are such a variety of workers being represented but in general and off the top of my head:

• no cuts in core pay for anyone earning less than 40k guaranteed
• an end to automatic increments based on time served
• Redundancies to made in areas that are not currently productive (an example being the planning offices all over the country that have little or no work)
• 10% pay cut for anyone earning over 100k
• 5% for anyone earning between 40-100k
• Increase the working week to 39 hours in areas where it is currently less than this

One thing for sure no nurse or guard is going to work a Sunday for the same pay as somebody working weekdays
What I see happening is, the talk will break down or the agreement will be rejected by the union members
Then the ball will be in the governments court to impose a pay cut leading to strikes and political instability leading to BAILOUT number 2 and a complete collapse in consumer spending, massive jobs losses just like Greece
That is what you get when you have an idiot running the country

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Have you ever had reason to call the gardai,or an ambulance?

I assume you sweep your own street and build your own roads too.

Recently yeah the guards, they showed up 3 hours later and I was taken into hospital with a torn retina whilst obtained playing GAA, I was on a trolley for 2 full days with only x-rays being done. I took the x-rays to the eye an ear place (private) got looked after in 2 hours.. I pay motor tax which is supposedly for the upkeep of the roads and I live in an apartment so I pay a fee for the upkeep of the roads and paths around me..Whats your point?

sean200

fliball123 wrote: »

I have availed of Public services in the past but in general I try not to use them as they are very poor IMO where as if I pay to do something privately the services is always better. But thats only my opinion. But I stand by the fact that services have been diminished, you cannot take the money out of services without it being hit whilst protecting pay and conditions of the work force behind it.

would you like to reveal dose services that you have paid for that are better???

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Are you sure that there are no pay rises in the banks? Last I heard their incremental scales were still in place and some staff were also getting individual pay rises.

Watch the banks in the next year all of them without exception are downsizing and letting staff go. AS for the banks are there pay rises going on, who is looking after the banks each bank has state involvement so if there are pay rises you need to take that up with Kenny if there are pay rises I would be just as outraged as you would be

sean200

fliball123 wrote: »

Recently yeah the guards, they showed up 3 hours later and I was taken into hospital with a torn retina whilst obtained playing GAA, I was on a trolley for 2 full days with only x-rays being done. I took the x-rays to the eye an ear place (private) got looked after in 2 hours.. I pay motor tax which is supposedly for the upkeep of the roads and I live in an apartment so I pay a fee for the upkeep of the roads and paths around me..Whats your point?

Do you not have private health insurance??
why should the state have to fund you torn retina, let the GAA pay for it

fliball123

daveyeh wrote: »

Moronic post

Why is it I have had a terrible time anytime I tried to avail of them

ssaye

Bonuses for people performing excellently and incentives to cost save in every department and cuts to people who dont perform so you motivate the best and punish the worst.

fliball123

sean200 wrote: »

Do you not have private health insurance??
why should the state have to fund you torn retina, let the GAA pay for it

I have VHI thank god so I do pay for it. Is that ok with you?

Chips Lovell

Celticfire wrote: »

What should the unions have done?

Maintained solidarity and asked that the cut be spread across all workers and not just new entrants.

COYW

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The same with third level lecturers. Very few students have lectures friday PM. Colleges are usually closed for a month at christmass and 16 weeks during the summer as well as mid-terms.

From my experiences in universities here, lecturers spend an awful lot of time outside lecturing hours working on research projects and directing postgraduate students with their research work.

kceire wrote: »

0-€49,999 - Nil Cut
€50,000 - €99,999 - 10% on the portion above 50k
€100,000 - 10% on the portion between 50k and 99.999k and 20% on the portion above 100k.

Yes but a heavy majority of the public sector staff earns less than €50K, so those cuts are going to contribute very little. I would tier the cuts right down to €25K myself. I would also extend the working week, as suggest above.

sean200

fliball123 wrote: »

I have VHI thank god so I do pay for it. Is that ok with you?

but the state is paying 21% of it or do you not avail of the tax deduction??

Celticfire

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Maintained solidarity and asked that the cut be spread across all workers and not just new entrants.

Not a chance. I've had my reductions and if you think I'm going to give up more money that my family needs to maintain solidarity and supplement pay you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

fliball123

sean200 wrote: »

but the state is paying 21% of it or do you not avail of the tax deduction??

No I pay for it. I decided once I became a father 2.5 years ago that if my son ever had any difficulty or problem I would be fecked if I was going to see him lying in a hospital trolley in pain.

daveyeh

fliball123 wrote: »

Recently yeah the guards, they showed up 3 hours later and I was taken into hospital with a torn retina whilst obtained playing GAA, I was on a trolley for 2 full days with only x-rays being done. I took the x-rays to the eye an ear place (private) got looked after in 2 hours.. I pay motor tax which is supposedly for the upkeep of the roads and I live in an apartment so I pay a fee for the upkeep of the roads and paths around me..Whats your point?

You tore your retina while playing GAA so you called the guards? Then you moan about not being a priority of theirs?
"Sorry love, can't make it up to that rape/murder thats going on up your way, we've got retina related GAA emergency to get to asap."

You then spend 2 DAYS on a trolley even though you have VHI?

Really??

fliball123

daveyeh wrote: »

You tore your retina while playing GAA so you called the guards? Then you moan about not being a priority of theirs?
"Sorry love, can't make it up to that rape/murder thats going on up your way, we've got retina related GAA emergency to get to asap."

You then spend 2 DAYS on a trolley even though you have VHI?

Really??

Sorry they were 2 seperate incidents, I rang the gaurds as I had a back window of my car smashed in with a stone. Sorry for the confusion. And the VHI was purchased after my time in St James Hospital for the torn retina,

daveyeh

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean200
but the state is paying 21% of it or do you not avail of the tax deduction??
No I pay for it. I decided once I became a father 2.5 years ago that if my son ever had any difficulty or problem I would be fecked if I was going to see him lying in a hospital trolley in pain.

Wrong. The state pays 20% of the actual cost.

daveyeh

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry they were 2 seperate incidents, I rang the gaurds as I had a back window of my car smashed in with a stone. Sorry for the confusion. And the VHI was purchased after my time in St James Hospital for the torn retina,

"Sorry love, can't make it up to that rape/murder thats going on up your way, we've got a smashed window emergency to get to asap."

COYW

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry they were 2 seperate incidents, I rang the gaurds as I had a back window of my car smashed in with a stone. Sorry for the confusion. And the VHI was purchased after my time in St James Hospital for the torn retina,

James' for a detached retina? Strange, my mother had the same and was brought to the Royal Victoria on Adelaide road and was seen in a few hours. She has no health insurance due to an existing condition. Horrible thing to have, hope all is good now.

fliball123

daveyeh wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean200
but the state is paying 21% of it or do you not avail of the tax deduction??
No I pay for it. I decided once I became a father 2.5 years ago that if my son ever had any difficulty or problem I would be fecked if I was going to see him lying in a hospital trolley in pain.

Wrong. The state pays 20% of the actual cost.

Also sean I pay taxes so I should be entitled to the same medicare as any one else I pay a premium so I dont have to use the crap services that are there at the moment..Dont get me wrong I am not having a go at the nurses and gaurds in general I think they do a decent job and when I was in James the nurses were ran off their feet. But the fact still bears that we are paying a lot of money in taxes for a poor service.

fliball123

COYW wrote: »

James' for a detached retina? Strange, my mother had the same and was brought to Royal Victoria on Adelaide road and was seen in a few hours. She has no health insurance, due to an existing condition. Horrible thing to have, hope all is good now.

Well to be fair I was knocked unconsious aswell so I was brought to the nearest hospital..yeah the eye is all good.

woodoo

I would like to see the following:

• Abolish the pension levy and introduce a pay-cut to take its place
• Reduction of Travel and Subsistence payments by 20%
• Abolish about 75% of all allowances paid.
• Changes to overtime arrangements, increase core hours time from 8am to 8pm where any work done at these times is paid single time.

• No increase to working week
• No freezing of increments

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

Recently yeah the guards, they showed up 3 hours later and I was taken into hospital with a torn retina whilst obtained playing GAA, I was on a trolley for 2 full days with only x-rays being done. I took the x-rays to the eye an ear place (private) got looked after in 2 hours.. I pay motor tax which is supposedly for the upkeep of the roads and I live in an apartment so I pay a fee for the upkeep of the roads and paths around me..Whats your point?

Why did you call the guards for a torn retina?

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

I would like to see the following:

• Abolish the pension levy and introduce a pay-cut to take its place
• Reduction of Travel and Subsistence payments by 20%
• Abolish about 75% of all allowances paid.
• Changes to overtime arrangements, increase core hours time from 8am to 8pm where any work done at these times is paid single time.

• No increase to working week
• No freezing of increments

point one saves nothing
Agree with the next 3
2nd last one saves nothing
The last one costs us money (we are trying to save money)

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

The 116 Billion was discussed this morning on Pat Kenny's Radio program with Liam Doran I would hazard a guess if it was wrong Doran would have brought him to task

www.rte.ie/radio/ go to pat kenny it is the first segment on todays program. Sorry if I was not clear thats the full cost of retiring PS over the next 30 years so its not a yearly cost. But guess what we are borrowing to pay this so add in the interest as well.

.

Here is the report published in 2009.

http://audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf

Net present value of liabilities as of December 2008 is €101 billion not €116 billion.

First interesting quote:

"Overall, the examination found that, based on the cost of one year’s additional service, the pension provision for an average public servant will cost around 9% of pay after account is taken of contributions made including the new pension related deduction introduced in 2009."

So in this case, the cost to the employer is 9% of pay. I have been in private sector jobs where the cost to the employer of contributions to my private pension scheme has been higher.

In relation to the early retirement schemes in planning in 2009, it states:

"The impact of the scheme will be to increase pension outflows in the short term and to reduce them in the longer term due to the lower number of years’ service achieved by those taking early retirement."

A clear signal that the early retirement schemes would reduce the long-term liability.

"2.21 Annual gross cash outflows are projected to increase by over 500% from €2.4 billion in 2009 to €14.7 billion in 2058 in constant 2008 price terms. Contribution income, including PRD, is also projected to increase by over 300% from €1.7 billion to €7.4 billion. The introduction of the PRD would significantly offset the cost of meeting pension obligations if it is maintained at 2009 rates rising from €1.0 billion in 2009 to €4.6 billion in 2058."

This paragraph 2.21 is very interesting. It shows that in 2009 gross outflow is €2.4 billion and contributions and PRD total €2.7 billion. Wow, current public servants paid for their predecessors pensions in 2009. by 2058 the gross outflow will be €14.7 billion but the total contributions will be €12 bn leaving a net annual cash flow of €2.7 billion. Hardly the oncoming train that will bankrupt the country. And this is before we look at the assumptions.

"Between 2038 and 2058 gross benefit expenditure is projected to increase from 2.5% to 3.6% of GNP. This increase also results from the projected growth in the number of pensioners and the related pensions outflow over this period exceeding the growth in GNP. The projected growth in the number of pensioners results from an increase in size of the public service which is forecast to increase by 23% between 2008 and 2018."

Another interesting quote. Does anyone really believe that the public service will increase by 23% between 2008 and 2018 when it is already down 10% on 2008. That (23% plus 10%) suggests you could shave one-third off the projected cost even before you look at Howlin's latest cuts in numbers.

A.18 The value of the accrued pension liability is calculated assuming that future pension increases are awarded at the same rate as general salary inflation i.e. 1.75% p.a. above price inflation (pay parity).

Here is another flaw that overestimates the cost. General salary increases of 1.75% plus inflation. That has not happened since 2008, salaries have gone down. As anyone who understands net present value would tell you, changes in the near future have a big effect because of the compound effect. Therefore if a 2008 calculation envisages 1.75% plus inflation as a pay increase every year and pay is lower four years later than 2008, the effect is that the figure of €116 billion is grossly overestimated. In the sensitivity analysis they only looked at the situation where the salary increases were greater (rather than lesser which is how it turned out) and they concluded that

"C.10 The impact is an increase in the net cost by between 1.4% and 7.2%. This demonstrates that the cost is very sensitive to this assumption."


I haven't time to point out other multiple flaws in the report as it relates to events that actually happened since 2008 but enough in the above to state with certainty that the cost is nowhere near as dear as they make out.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Here is the report published in 2009.

http://audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf

Net present value of liabilities as of December 2008 is €101 billion not €116 billion.

First interesting quote:

"Overall, the examination found that, based on the cost of one year’s additional service, the pension provision for an average public servant will cost around 9% of pay after account is taken of contributions made including the new pension related deduction introduced in 2009."

So in this case, the cost to the employer is 9% of pay. I have been in private sector jobs where the cost to the employer of contributions to my private pension scheme has been higher.

In relation to the early retirement schemes in planning in 2009, it states:

"The impact of the scheme will be to increase pension outflows in the short term and to reduce them in the longer term due to the lower number of years’ service achieved by those taking early retirement."

A clear signal that the early retirement schemes would reduce the long-term liability.

"2.21

Annual gross cash outflows are projected to increase by over 500% from €2.4 billion in 2009 to €14.7 billion in 2058 in constant 2008 price terms. Contribution income, including PRD, is also projected to increase by over 300% from €1.7 billion to €7.4 billion. The introduction of the PRD would significantly offset the cost of meeting pension obligations if it is maintained at 2009 rates rising from €1.0 billion in 2009 to €4.6 billion in 2058."

This paragraph 2.21 is very interesting. It shows that in 2009 gross outflow is €2.4 billion and contributions and PRD total €2.7 billion. Wow, current public servants paid for their predecessors pensions in 2009. by 2058 the gross outflow will be €14.7 billion but the total contributions will be €12 bn leaving a net annual cash flow of €2.7 billion. Hardly the oncoming train that will bankrupt the country. And this is before we look at the assumptions.

"Between 2038 and 2058 gross benefit expenditure is projected to increase from 2.5% to 3.6% of GNP. This increase also results from the projected growth in the number of pensioners and the related pensions outflow over this period exceeding the growth in GNP. The projected growth in the number of pensioners results from an increase in size of the public service which is forecast to increase by 23% between 2008 and 2018."

Another interesting quote. Does anyone really believe that the public service will increase by 23% between 2008 and 2018 when it is already down 10% on 2008. That (23% plus 10%) suggests you could shave one-third off the projected cost even before you look at Howlin's latest cuts in numbers.

A.18

The value of the accrued pension liability is calculated assuming that future pension increases are awarded at the same rate as general salary inflation i.e. 1.75% p.a. above price inflation (pay parity).

Here is another flaw that overestimates the cost. General salary increases of 1.75% plus inflation. That has not happened since 2008, salaries have gone down. As anyone who understands net present value would tell you, changes in the near future have a big effect because of the compound effect. Therefore if a 2008 calculation envisages 1.75% plus inflation as a pay increase every year and pay is lower four years later than 2008, the effect is that the figure of €116 billion is grossly overestimated. In the sensitivity analysis they only looked at the situation where the salary increases were greater (rather than lesser which is how it turned out) and they concluded that

"C.10 The impact is an increase in the net cost by between 1.4% and 7.2%. This demonstrates that the cost is very sensitive to this assumption."


I haven't time to point out other multiple flaws in the report as it relates to events that actually happened since 2008 but enough in the above to state with certainty that the cost is nowhere near as dear as they make out.

Well that is the figure being used and no one has argued it.

sean200

COYW wrote: »

From my experiences in universities here, lecturers spend an awful lot of time outside lecturing hours working on research projects and directing postgraduate students with their research work.



Yes but a heavy majority of the public sector staff earns less than €50K, so those cuts are going to contribute very little. I would tier the cuts right down to €25K myself. I would also extend the working week, as suggest above.

But what do you get from cutting pay ?
Say you cut the pay bill by 1 billion
So between tax, USC and PRSI 52% goes straight back so you save 480 million
Most of that 480 million would be spent and hence 23% would go straight back to the state so now you have saved 369 million
So do you take that 369 million and give it to bond holder, cause job losses and pay it out as dole or do you leave it in the economy and maintain jobs??