I thought we were broke!

OMD

barneystinson wrote: »

That would all be well and good if the pension levy were a pension contribution, which it isn't. Unless you know something I don't (for the second time)?

Section 7 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009:
(1) Nothing in this Act is to be read as conferring any additional benefit payable, or that may become payable, under a public service pension scheme.
(2) A deduction under section 2 is not a pension contribution for the purposes of the Pensions Act 1990

So that tells me it's not a pension contribution and it doesn't confer any benefit - so it is a deduction from pre-tax pay, aka a pay cut, albeit presented slightly differently, so as to avoid industrial relations armageddon.

None of that matters. You said 80k was the equivalent to 73k in private sector. What you think pension levy is doesn't matter. You still get the pension. To get the same pension the private sector worker would have to put in more. So the 80k public sector pay is actually equivalent to a private sector salary of around 85k. Not the 73k you are saying. That is a substantial difference.

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

It depends on how the funds are invested, where they're invested and who is managing it. My fund from my time in industry is still promising a significantly greater return than the last statement I go about my PS pension, despite the fact that I've spent, now, only slightly longer in industry than in the PS.

I'd love to be able to channel my PS pension contributions into my private pot, but there's no provision for that.

If you are a low paid worker you may have a point but at this kind of money no pension fund would grow enough to give the same benefits for 6.5% contribution. None.

kerryguy78

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Yes, let's all give up and forget that we're broke. We have some the highest paid PS workers, pensioners and unemployed in the developed world and we're also the most in debt.

We don't do anything about it because our politicians haven't got the wherewithal to stand up to the vested interests. They want their jobs too!

Meanwhile idiots like me keep paying for everything while getting less and less in return.

Yes, let's just leave all well alone and get on with our lives regardless. Let the debts mount up - debts that are not paying for infrastructure or benefits to society as a whole, that's gone, a long time ago. No, it's debt to pay for the people in Ireland who believe they deserve to get handouts from the ever-decreasing number of taxpayers more than any of the other self-serving group.

I was shouting about it years ago and I'll keep shouting about it at every opportunity. It's wrong, just wrong and has to stop if this country is ever going to get back on it's feet again.

So if there's a PS bashing thread every day then good, because everyday one more person might try and do something about it!

Well said, i'm a tax payer and feel i'm being laughed at for getting up to work and pay tax. Only clowns pay tax!!!!!

barneystinson

OMD wrote: »

None of that matters. You said 80k was the equivalent to 73k in private sector. What you think pension levy is doesn't matter. You still get the pension. To get the same pension the private sector worker would have to put in more. So the 80k public sector pay is actually equivalent to a private sector salary of around 85k. Not the 73k you are saying. That is a substantial difference.

And yet again, as I have made clear several times, I was talking about the take home pay. I suppose the take home pay is irrelevant to you in your job?

• Let's say you're currently earning 50k in the private sector (gross salary).
• And you have the opportunity of a PS job with a gross salary of 100k (because these jobs are so overpaid, right!).
• And of course the job also comes with a generous DB pension.
• And you only have to pay a pension contribution of 6.5%.
• BUT... there's a "pension related deduction" of 60% of the gross salary, which means the taxable gross is actually 40k.

Would you weigh up the move based on the gross salary or the take home pay?

barneystinson

OMD wrote: »

If you are a low paid worker you may have a point but at this kind of money no pension fund would grow enough to give the same benefits for 6.5% contribution. None.

What about the employer's contribution?

barneystinson

kerryguy78 wrote: »

Well said, i'm a tax payer and feel i'm being laughed at for getting up to work and pay tax. Only clowns pay tax!!!!!

Do you think clowns should be exempt from tax?

beeftotheheels

kerryguy78 wrote: »

Well said, i'm a tax payer and feel i'm being laughed at for getting up to work and pay tax. Only clowns pay tax!!!!!

Please can we put this idea to bed? It is now very very difficult if not impossible to not pay your taxes in Ireland if you live here (JP McManus and Denis O'Brien and co claim not to live here).

Cowboy tax advisers being cheered on by the banks (did they learn nothing from the bogus non resident accounts investigation) keep suggesting that it is possible to extract cash from a business and pay no tax - by and large it is not.

The rumour has taken hold that it is oh so easy for the middle classes to avoid paying taxes and believe me it really was back in 2005. But it does not reflect reality in 2013 as distinct from the reality in 2005.

This is why Revenue are hiring more poachers from the professions to turn them into gate keepers, they are doing their job.

kerryguy78

its just demoralising to be gettin up at 5.30am every morning to go to work, when others who won't get off their arses stay in bed and get ''paid'' for doing nothing

kerryguy78

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Please can we put this idea to bed? It is now very very difficult if not impossible to not pay your taxes in Ireland if you live here (JP McManus and Denis O'Brien and co claim not to live here).

Cowboy tax advisers being cheered on by the banks (did they learn nothing from the bogus non resident accounts investigation) keep suggesting that it is possible to extract cash from a business and pay no tax - by and large it is not.

The rumour has taken hold that it is oh so easy for the middle classes to avoid paying taxes and believe me it really was back in 2005. But it does not reflect reality in 2013 as distinct from the reality in 2005.

This is why Revenue are hiring more poachers from the professions to turn them into gate keepers, they are doing their job.

i'm talking about long term dolers

barneystinson

kerryguy78 wrote: »

its just demoralising to be gettin up at 5.30am every morning to go to work, when others who won't get off their arses stay in bed and get ''paid'' for doing nothing

Janie Mac, I never realised clowns worked such long hours...

beeftotheheels

kerryguy78 wrote: »

its just demoralising to be gettin up at 5.30am every morning to go to work, when others who won't get off their arses stay in bed and get ''paid'' for doing nothing

Who is getting paid for doing nothing (pensioners aside)?

Would you trade places with the person who thought he had a good job through to 2009 when he ended up on the dole because his employer became bankrupt?

Of the woman who can't work because she ignored her back problems to the point where she lost too much power in her right leg and now cannot drive?

It is too easy to put people into buckets and label them. Every case has its own individual hardships - not least yours because you're getting up as I'm in the land of zzzs

But wanting to believe that there is some mystery magic button out there which could resolve all our ills without hurting any people who are already hurting just is not true. Whatever cuts are made, whatever taxes rise will hurt at least one person who feels that they just can't take any more.

beeftotheheels

kerryguy78 wrote: »

i'm talking about long term dolers

We had 4% unemployment in 2007, which suggests that the vast majority of people on the dole are there because they've lost their jobs since 2007 (and that doesn't include the people who took the boat and so avoid being in our unemployed statistics).

Yes they exist, but they're the minority, not the majority who would give their right arm for a job.

kerryguy78

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Who is getting paid for doing nothing (pensioners aside)?

Would you trade places with the person who thought he had a good job through to 2009 when he ended up on the dole because his employer became bankrupt?

Of the woman who can't work because she ignored her back problems to the point where she lost too much power in her right leg and now cannot drive?

It is too easy to put people into buckets and label them. Every case has its own individual hardships - not least yours because you're getting up as I'm in the land of zzzs

But wanting to believe that there is some mystery magic button out there which could resolve all our ills without hurting any people who are already hurting just is not true. Whatever cuts are made, whatever taxes rise will hurt at least one person who feels that they just can't take any more.

once again i'm talking about the ppl who during the boom that couldn't be bothered working even doe employers were crying out for workers

barneystinson

OMD wrote: »

None of that matters. You said 80k was the equivalent to 73k in private sector. What you think pension levy is doesn't matter. You still get the pension. To get the same pension the private sector worker would have to put in more. So the 80k public sector pay is actually equivalent to a private sector salary of around 85k. Not the 73k you are saying. That is a substantial difference.

Oh and just to be clear, I was talking about a specific case in point (you'll note I started the example with the phrase "case in point").

As I have already said several times, the type of person they are looking to hire will already be in a job at executive level, where they have various benefits such as car, health insurance, professional subs, pension plan and performance bonuses. So for simplicity sake I made the assumption that all of these on one side of a seesaw would equate to one gold plated Govt pension, and a few extra days of annual leave on the other side (and I reckon I was being generous to you at that).

So having taken all of the non-pay elements out of the equation that left the comparison to be between the salary (or more relevantly) take home pay of the 2 jobs.

In which case it is entirely correct and valid to say the 80k PS job equates to 73k in the private sector, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE.

beeftotheheels

barneystinson wrote: »

Oh and just to be clear, I was talking about a specific case in point (you'll note I started the example with the phrase "case in point").

As I have already said several times, the type of person they are looking to hire will already be in a job at executive level, where they have various benefits such as car, health insurance, professional subs, pension plan and performance bonuses. So for simplicity sake I made the assumption that all of these on one side of a seesaw would equate to one gold plated Govt pension, and a few extra days of annual leave on the other side (and I reckon I was being generous to you at that).

So having taken all of the non-pay elements out of the equation that left the comparison to be between the salary (or more relevantly) take home pay of the 2 jobs.

In which case it is entirely correct and valid to say the 80k PS job equates to 73k in the private sector, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE.

It just doesn't. Tax director in practice will have a lousy pension, lousy, believe mine is currently valued (the pot) at about 24k. The pension is a huge difference and employers only offer gold plated contributions to very serious execs (think CEO) not to tax directors.

So it is not worth 73k in the private arena, it is worth more than face value, not to mention that you won't have billing, time sheets, the risk of being sued, antsy clients, long hours, deadlines that interfere with your holidays and you will have the fun of actually drafting legislation, being able to catch the bad guys and be on the side of angels...

Revenue had no problem hiring POs and APs from the private sector and I doubt that they will this time, they don't need to (and never should have) compete on salary once they're not offering a breadline salary.

barneystinson

beeftotheheels wrote: »

It just doesn't. Tax director in practice will have a lousy pension, lousy, believe mine is currently valued (the pot) at about 24k. The pension is a huge difference and employers only offer gold plated contributions to very serious execs (think CEO) not to tax directors.

So it is not worth 73k in the private arena, it is worth more than face value, not to mention that you won't have billing, time sheets, the risk of being sued, antsy clients, long hours, deadlines that interfere with your holidays and you will have the fun of actually drafting legislation, being able to catch the bad guys and be on the side of angels...

Revenue had no problem hiring POs and APs from the private sector and I doubt that they will this time, they don't need to (and never should have) compete on salary once they're not offering a breadline salary.

Maybe you should apply for the tax director job ad I linked to earlier in the thread... Or apply for the PO role if you fit the spec. Curiously, I haven't seen any male APs or POs hired from outside in the recent competitions - make of that what you will.

Gumbo

beeftotheheels wrote: »

It just doesn't. Tax director in practice will have a lousy pension, lousy, believe mine is currently valued (the pot) at about 24k. The pension is a huge difference and employers only offer gold plated contributions to very serious execs (think CEO) not to tax directors.

You need to take control of your pension fund!
My AIB PRSA is worth 25% more then my contributions since 2003.

OMD

kceire wrote: »

You need to take control of your pension fund!
My AIB PRSA is worth 25% more then my contributions since 2003.

25% in 10 years is bad alright. I suppose it is beating inflation at least.

beeftotheheels

kceire wrote: »

You need to take control of your pension fund!
My AIB PRSA is worth 25% more then my contributions since 2003.

I don't give a damn about my pension fund - you move employer and under current Irish law it is not worth an iota once you become a "deferred beneficiary" who can be wiped out on the alter of "current pensioners" at the drop of a hat. I'm 35. The worst age for pensions in that I paid in when equities were expensive and lost out when they crashed. I'll make it back.

I give a damn about public sector gilt edged pensions because public sector employees don't seem to realise what they are worth. Let's be honest, retiring with a private sector fund worth less than €1m, probably €2m and you're not going to be set up for life. Retiring with a public sector final salary scheme and you are.

Yet the public sector insist we ignore this huge benefit they receive, not available in the private sector, and that our hearts bleed for them on the basis that they now have to make some small and generally insignificant in the grand scheme of the numbers contribution via the levy towards their own gilt edged pensions.

beeftotheheels

barneystinson wrote: »

Maybe you should apply for the tax director job ad I linked to earlier in the thread... Or apply for the PO role if you fit the spec. Curiously, I haven't seen any male APs or POs hired from outside in the recent competitions - make of that what you will.

Tax director - in industry? Where you care about the provision in the income statement more than you care about the law?

Thanks but no thanks. Some of us actually still have a grá for the work, for understanding the law and advising our clients (or indeed contacts in the Castle) on the law. Reduce a profession to number crunching and it is really more of a skilled trade.

The work life balance appeals more to women, but I'm going to offer my unscientific opinion that we're actually more ethical, the call from the side of the angels resonates more strongly with us (unscientific but I've worked on both sides of the Irish sea and even women who were not mothers tended more towards considering joining the Revenue authorities when they advertised positions, I've only known one man to make that leap, I know several women who have for the reason of joining the side of the angels).

Jawgap

OMD wrote: »

If you are a low paid worker you may have a point but at this kind of money no pension fund would grow enough to give the same benefits for 6.5% contribution. None.

In Ireland, maybe. But my private pot is managed through a UK fund and the returns exceed my notional PS pot. As I said it's a real pity there isn't the flexibility to opt out of the PS fund and make your own arrangements.

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

In Ireland, maybe. But my private pot is managed through a UK fund and the returns exceed my notional PS pot. As I said it's a real pity there isn't the flexibility to opt out of the PS fund and make your own arrangements.

UK funds are no better than Irish ones. You are extremely unlikely to be better off by investing your own pension unless low paid.
Investing in foreign currency means you are gambling with the currency markets. This may have made your fund look very good over the last 2 years or so but it is not long term growth.

Count Dooku

Jawgap wrote: »

In Ireland, maybe. But my private pot is managed through a UK fund and the returns exceed my notional PS pot. As I said it's a real pity there isn't the flexibility to opt out of the PS fund and make your own arrangements.

You should tell about it to your union shop steward, everybody will benefit if PS workers will pay own pensions themselves

Jawgap

OMD wrote: »

UK funds are no better than Irish ones. You are extremely unlikely to be better off by investing your own pension unless low paid.
Investing in foreign currency means you are gambling with the currency markets. This may have made your fund look very good over the last 2 years or so but it is not long term growth.

To be honest, I'm less concerned about absolute performance and currency fluctuations and more concerned about regulatory risk - in short, I think pension funds, and financial services in general, are better regulated in the UK than here.

there's also the issue of admin fees and costs which tend to be substantially higher here than in the UK.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Again, you are making no sense. For example if you are calculating the "cost of the public sector" as a percentage of total expenditure of course you use the gross cost. If you are calculating the "cost of the public sector" to private sector taxpayers only, you use the net cost. So even in the limited example you give, there are times when you use either one.

I am not saying that the gross cost is wrong or the net cost is right, what I am saying is that the appropriate figure to use depends on what you are trying to measure. If you use the wrong figures to make a point, it is something that will end up in the "standard of financial journalism" thread.

Why are people trying to bring up nett vs gross savings when it comes to cutting. Once savings are made. Remember this will have a knock on effect of saving a lot more when it comes to paying the public sector pensions that are based on salary so by cutting even if we do lose out in tax we gain more again on the savings in pensions later on when they retire. So 1 billion will probably work out in the long run as a billion saved

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Why are people trying to bring up nett vs gross savings when it comes to cutting. Once savings are made. Remember this will have a knock on effect of saving a lot more when it comes to paying the public sector pensions that are based on salary so by cutting even if we do lose out in tax we gain more again on the savings in pensions later on when they retire. So 1 billion will probably work out in the long run as a billion saved

Eh no, that is not how it works. You would need to assume that there would never be another pay rise in the public service no matter what happened inflation which is a silly assumption to make.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Eh no, that is not how it works. You would need to assume that there would never be another pay rise in the public service no matter what happened inflation which is a silly assumption to make.

Has the public service pensions not changed from retiring income to average Income? Surely if people in the ps get another paycut or/and are not getting increments for say the next 5/6 years until we are completely out of the mess (with luck) Then it has to have a knock on effect for pensions as in bringing down their career average wage which is what pensions are based on?

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/01/public-service-pensions-single-scheme-commencement-order/

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

Has the public service pensions not changed from retiring income to average Income? Surely if people in the ps get another paycut or/and are not getting increments for say the next 5/6 years until we are completely out of the mess (with luck) Then it has to have a knock on effect for pensions as in bringing down their career average wage which is what pensions are based on?

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/01/public-service-pensions-single-scheme-commencement-order/

It'll have more than a knock-on effect for pensions...nobody will want to take PS jobs anymore and public services will suffer exponentially...in addition the Private Sector will suffer as PS people spend less money as there is less money in thier pockets.

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

It'll have more than a knock-on effect for pensions...nobody will want to take PS jobs anymore and public services will suffer exponentially...in addition the Private Sector will suffer as PS people spend less money as there is less money in thier pockets.

I would hazard a guess that fair % of those currently not working and those in college or those in jobsbridge would bite your hand off to get a job in the public sector..It may not pay as much as it once did and your pension may come down a bit aswell, but both are guaranteed and when compared to the private sector there is still a fair premium paid to those working in the public sector. Also it would mean they would not have to emigrate to find work

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that fair % of those currently not working and those in college or those in jobsbridge would bite your hand off to get a job in the public sector..It may not pay as much as it once did and your pension may come down a bit aswell, but both are guaranteed and when compared to the private sector there is still a fair premium paid to those working in the public sector. Also it would mean they would not have to emigrate to find work

Dunno where you get that idea...starter in my job is 21k and thats a contract...there's no more permanent posts as long as the moratorium is in place.

And if all these hordes of people are so desperate for work why was it so difficult to fill PS posts for so many years?