Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Godge

barneystinson wrote: »

Sorry Godge, you're misunderstanding me - I'm expressing surprise at how HIGH that figure is. Have a look over on the accountancy forum at the guy/gal in Galway, stuck on 23k as a fully qualified accountant with several years experience.

There's no-one bar the partners, in any accountancy firm outside of Dublin, earning next or near 90k.

Even in industry you'd have to be the FC or Director to be on that kind of wedge; the accountancy profession is a pyramid shape like any other with a broad base of trainees and people who'll never make it to 90k. That survey showing 90k average figure is a piece of propaganda - "you should join our institute, and you'll be minted like us!", I'm very dubious...

But as I said, if I'm wrong, it just means I'm even more underpaid than I thought! :pac:

I know several accountants, some outside Dublin. None of them live a lifestyle that implies earnings less than 100k.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

You posted that earlier today, six or seven pages back.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92494930&postcount=1203

You got detailed answers then that refuted your point. Yet you chose to ignore those responses and posted again the same discredited point.

I for one won't be paying any attention to your posts.

Great, will save me from the most basic of explanations.

barneystinson wrote: »

Sorry Godge, you're misunderstanding me - I'm expressing surprise at how HIGH that figure is. Have a look over on the accountancy forum at the guy/gal in Galway, stuck on 23k as a fully qualified accountant with several years experience.

There's no-one bar the partners, in any accountancy firm outside of Dublin, earning next or near 90k.

Even in industry you'd have to be the FC or Director to be on that kind of wedge; the accountancy profession is a pyramid shape like any other with a broad base of trainees and people who'll never make it to 90k. That survey showing 90k average figure is a piece of propaganda - "you should join our institute, and you'll be minted like us!", I'm very dubious...

But as I said, if I'm wrong, it just means I'm even more underpaid than I thought! :pac:

For once, I have to agree with you. You nailed this one

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

Great, will save me from the most basic of explanations.



For once, I have to agree with you. You nailed this one

I have no idea what you even mean any more (whether you actually agree with me, or you "agree" with me); it seems your arse is now so smart that you've vanished into it and all I can see is that little periwinkle winking at me! Seriously.

Rightwing

Peter Flynt wrote: »

A friend of mine in a major multinational Accountancy firm told me she interviewed someone recommended three weeks ago for a position . . Salary 85K - He had virtually no experience.

In that case we can break the bad news to him early.

garancafan

Peter Flynt wrote: »

A friend of mine in a major multinational Accountancy firm told me she interviewed someone recommended three weeks ago for a position . . Salary 85K - He had virtually no experience.

Time for another PS benchmarking!

ardmacha

garancafan wrote: »

Time for another PS benchmarking!

Or at least some recognition that there are these relatively well paid disciplines in which people can get employment, and that people in similar jobs in the Revenue Commissioners or teaching these people in third level etc cannot simply be penalised compared to others with their skills because of a political philosophy.

Godge

Godge wrote: »

It took a national financial emergency to legally cut the pensions in accordance with the Constitution. Once the emergency is over, the pensions will have to be restored, in accordance with Constitutional law. The only question is how quickly will the pay cuts and pensions be restored.

I posted that quite some time ago and other similar posts many times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-needs-to-win-back-the-support-of-workers-1.1981268

"It is understood that the Government was anxious that the financial emergency legislation be wound down in a controlled manner. A big fear was that a court could rule that the financial emergency legislation was no longer valid given the surge in the economy – a recovery which in other contexts Government Ministers have been strongly proclaiming.
Further steps in this area are likely to be taken by the Government next year. Public service unions are expected to lodge claims for a pay rise next spring."


Well, at least the Irish Times is coming round to my analysis of public service pay, good news for my pension.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

I posted that quite some time ago and other similar posts many times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-needs-to-win-back-the-support-of-workers-1.1981268

"It is understood that the Government was anxious that the financial emergency legislation be wound down in a controlled manner. A big fear was that a court could rule that the financial emergency legislation was no longer valid given the surge in the economy – a recovery which in other contexts Government Ministers have been strongly proclaiming.
Further steps in this area are likely to be taken by the Government next year. Public service unions are expected to lodge claims for a pay rise next spring."


Well, at least the Irish Times is coming round to my analysis of public service pay, good news for my pension.

Your... analysis? Christ what a missued word these days. Finding an article to. Repeat, echo or regurgitate an opinion on an Internet forum shouldn't be taken as that newspaper coming around to "your way of thinking". Fairly egotistical of you in fairness.


Anyway, any spare money would be fairer spent bringing new entrants back up to the same level as old entrants. Also the the under 35k staff.

An across the board pay rise would would be unaffordable and still see post 2010 entrants discriminated against.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Your... analysis? Christ what a missued word these days. Finding an article to. Repeat, echo or regurgitate an opinion on an Internet forum shouldn't be taken as that newspaper coming around to "your way of thinking". Fairly egotistical of you in fairness.


Anyway, any spare money would be fairer spent bringing new entrants back up to the same level as old entrants. Also the the under 35k staff.

An across the board pay rise would would be unaffordable and still see post 2010 entrants discriminated against.

Never suggested that the bit in bold wouldn't be the first to happen.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Never suggested that the bit in bold wouldn't be the first to happen.

Well I have my doubts. The old guard won't allow the newbies or lower entrants an increase without them also benefiting.

10% pay cut for new entrants, inferior pension conditions and new combined pay scales which are worse than the new entrant pay scales pretty much highlight the willingness to accept disparity.

Fr. Ned

Why isn't this thread titled 'Government to give PS pay rises on top of annual pay rises (increments)?'
I'd reckon retired civil and public 'servants' will be happy too considering their pensions are directly linked to the pay scales in the PS/CS.
Vested interests with noses deep in the trough.

Vizzy

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Why isn't this thread titled 'Government to give PS pay rises on top of annual pay rises (increments)?' .

I'm sure that there is nothing to stop you starting a thread with that title.

Fr. Ned

Vizzy wrote: »

I'm sure that there is nothing to stop you starting a thread with that title.

Don't get me wrong.
The PS workers on very low pay scales and the new entrants taken on with the lowest pay rates should be the only ones to benefit from any proposed increases.
Retired PS/CS employees will want the raises as their pensions are linked to the grade they retired at.

Mongfinder General

When you're taxing public sector employees at 62% pay rises above 33800 won't go far.

Fr. Ned

Mongfinder General wrote: »

When you're taxing public sector employees at 62% pay rises above 33800 won't go far.

62%?

Sheldons Brain

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Don't get me wrong.
The PS workers on very low pay scales and the new entrants taken on with the lowest pay rates should be the only ones to benefit from any proposed increases.
Retired PS/CS employees will want the raises as their pensions are linked to the grade they retired at.

Why should unskilled people at the bottom get payrises while people with skills get none, especially as the latter are doing well in the private sector?

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Well I have my doubts. The old guard won't allow the newbies or lower entrants an increase without them also benefiting.

10% pay cut for new entrants, inferior pension conditions and new combined pay scales which are worse than the new entrant pay scales pretty much highlight the willingness to accept disparity.

The new pay scales issue has already been addressed with the new combined payscales. They are not worse than the new entrant scales, they mean that new entrants will end up the same as old entrants, effectively there are just a couple of lower points on entry meaning a slightly longer time to reach the max.

The pension changes were inevitable. I am surprised that the government didn't move to make all future service subject to the new scheme. Would have kept pension costs down even more.

Fr. Ned

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Why should unskilled people at the bottom get payrises while people with skills get none, especially as the latter are doing well in the private sector?

Benchmarking all round, eh?
Where was that when private sector pay was being decimated?

Godge

Fr. Ned wrote: »

62%?

You are obviously coming late to this discussion.

The marginal compulsory deductions for a public servant over 70k is very high.

Tax: 41%
PRSI: 4%
USC: 7%
Pension: 6.5%
Pension Levy: 12%


With tax relief that gives a marginal rate in or around 66.8%

Fr. Ned

Godge wrote: »

You are obviously coming late to this discussion.

The marginal compulsory deductions for a public servant over 70k is very high.

Tax: 41%
PRSI: 4%
USC: 7%
Pension: 6.5%
Pension Levy: 12%


With tax relief that gives a marginal rate in or around 66.8%

The quote I referred to was about 'taxing' PS workers at 62%.
I don't consider 6.5% pension and 12% pension levy as a 'tax'.
It is making provision for one's retirement.
I would also consider a PS/CS employee earning over €70k as well paid.

Kermit.de.frog

If we are really going down this road again of giving pay rises to overpaid public sector instead of doing the sensible thing of cutting taxes then we need to bring the troika back because we are clearly incapable of running our own affairs.

Fr. Ned

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If we are really going down this road again of giving pay rises to overpaid public sector instead of doing the sensible thing of cutting taxes then we need to bring the troika back because we are clearly incapable of running our own affairs.

There's an election on the horizon.
FFail are dead, long live FFail........

Mongfinder General

Fr. Ned wrote: »

The quote I referred to was about 'taxing' PS workers at 62%.
I don't consider 6.5% pension and 12% pension levy as a 'tax'.
It is making provision for one's retirement.
I would also consider a PS/CS employee earning over €70k as well paid.

There is no choice in this provision for one's retirement. PS workers are handing this money over without a choice. Furthermore, anybody thinking that the pension schemes they are paying into now will be paying out in 30 or 40 years are kidding themselves. Too many dependents, too few contributors.

It is a tax. In fact it is worse than a tax. You expect something in return when taxed.

Fr. Ned

Mongfinder General wrote: »

There is no choice in this provision for one's retirement. PS workers are handing this money over without a choice. Furthermore, anybody thinking that the pension schemes they are paying into now will be paying out in 30 or 40 years are kidding themselves. Too many dependents, too few contributors.

It is a tax. In fact it is worse than a tax. You expect something in return when taxed.

Perhaps PS/CS workers should lobby for a 'get out' clause and provide for their own pensions?

Mongfinder General

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Perhaps PS/CS workers should lobby for a 'get out' clause and provide for their own pensions?

Absolutely. And a refund of all contributions made to date.

Fr. Ned

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Absolutely. And a refund of all contributions made to date.

Agreed.

barneystinson

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Perhaps PS/CS workers should lobby for a 'get out' clause and provide for their own pensions?

Gladly. If I could have had all the money I've paid in pension contributions & pension levy back, I'd have been able to buy a house for a song, pay back a tiny mortgage and have loads of spare cash in 15-20 years time to build up a pension fund. Instead I'll have to wait another 3 years and get screwed on price, and god knows what pension I'll actually get when I retire...

Fr. Ned

barneystinson wrote: »

Gladly. If I could have had all the money I've paid in pension contributions & pension levy back, I'd have been able to buy a house for a song, pay back a tiny mortgage and have loads of spare cash in 15-20 years time to build up a pension fund. Instead I'll have to wait another 3 years and get screwed on price, and god knows what pension I'll actually get when I retire...

As I said, I agree with you.
Paying PS/CS pensions out of the government current account isn't sustainable.
Every citizen of this country should provide for their own pensions from their after tax income.

ZeroThreat

barneystinson wrote: »

Gladly. If I could have had all the money I've paid in pension contributions & pension levy back, I'd have been able to buy a house for a song, pay back a tiny mortgage and have loads of spare cash in 15-20 years time to build up a pension fund. Instead I'll have to wait another 3 years and get screwed on price, and god knows what pension I'll actually get when I retire...

... and even worse than this, Joan 'the moan' Burton has renewed plans to force mandatory pension deductions from everyone else in the private sector.
I reckon it's more to do with having another fund politicians can raid/dip into at will, rather than caring about whether or not workers provide for their retirement. :mad:

barneystinson

Fr. Ned wrote: »

As I said, I agree with you.
Paying PS/CS pensions out of the government current account isn't sustainable.
Every citizen of this country should provide for their own pensions from their after tax income.

Why out of their after tax income? Sure they'll pay income tax on the pension when they draw it, hence pension contributions get tax relief.