Benefits of Public Sector over Private Sector

raze_them_all_

Deleted User wrote: »

think thats a bit of a mixup of a few things you got there, its not quite as bad as all that

but certainly the single scheme is nobodys idea of a giveaway pension

think the summing up a few posts back was fair

glad to be in a decent salaried safe job with pension taken care of as we head into another tough patch

Its my pension, i can assure you it is

Pkiernan

Pkiernan wrote: »

Nothing lazy about posting facts about the huge difference between Public Servants gold plated, guaranteed pensions and the harsh reality that Private workers will face in comparison.

You seem very touchy about your pension. Don't worry, you're on the pigs back! Enjoy it!

a poster referenced what im presuming werefigures for a single scheme retiree finishing up with a pension of 16k odd (clerical officer or therabouts id guess, for purposes of figure)

you took this and made a hopeless comparison with it.

you were invited to clarify:

- that you understand that the 16k figure included the COAP, which the public servant pays for like anyone else through PRSI

- that your "average" figure was for someone who had made forty years contribution to a pension, or not

your links- i took the time to peruse- dont settle either critical question.

your links have little or nothing to do with the single scheme pension example to which you originally made your comparison and throwaway comment

your links dont let us know whether or not you now understand why the two points i made were relevant and rendered your comment irrelevant and incorrect in context.

your links- in context, and without any analysis of worth from yourself- bring nothing to the conversation other than you found something that said "public pension good private pension bad"

one of your links is about tax relief on pension contributions for gods sake. even at that it is on the face of it utter nonsense in that it seems to claim that public servants getting the same relief as anyone else is unfair because they make higher contributions!

as ive said, i think its important we challenge uninformed, uncomprehending spin and drive-by no-content zingers like you posted until you either admit it was totally incorrect or anyone reading is in no doubt that your continuing not to engage with the points raised shows your inability to engage on a meaningful level.

i trust the average reader will see the merit in your responding with google links that you cannot tie back to your original claim and that i doubt that you could make a coherent argument around on any relevant point, given their limited quality as data and questionable skew as analysis.

no rancour whatsoever, but keep posting lazy throwaways and ill keep telling you why its worthless

raze_them_all_

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Its my pension, i can assure you it is

fair enough, i wasnt aware of a mandatory aged-60 retirement that paid nothing until 68 but im sure you know your terms better than i!

Treppen

Pkiernan wrote: »

From the Irish Times:

Public-sector pensions worth 80% more than those in private sector.

Public-sector workers receive about nine times more pension tax relief per person, on average, than those in the private sector, new figures show, as pressure from the pensions industry mounts to retain the current generous tax relief regime in an effort to shore up private retirement savings.




https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/public-sector-pensions-worth-80-more-than-those-in-private-sector-1.3726553%3fmode=amp

Those figures are based on now-defunct public sector pension schemes. Anyone joining a public sector pension scheme now will barely get out of it what they put into it.

Also... who are these people in the private sector you are basing it on? A minimum wage shelf stacker who puts Zero into a pension lumped in with Michael O' Leary Vs' a narrow cohort of public sector workers the vast majority earning between 40-60k and required to put in X amount in every month whether they like it or not?

Apples and oranges.

gmisk

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

I k ow certain new public sector pensions are about 15-16k a year and cant get it until 68 despite beimg forced to retire at 60 hardly an amazing gold plated pension people do go on about

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I thought retirement age was 65? I think it has been in any department I have worked in

raze_them_all_

gmisk wrote: »

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I thought retirement age was 65? I think it has been in any department I have worked in

Depends on your department and job. I have no choice whether i join at 20 or 50, forced retirement at 60

CramCycle

kippy wrote: »

Look, it's fairly simple. If you don't pay for an occupational pension, you don't get one.

And that's what people seem to miss, as well as the fact the figures don't account for the non standard "pensions" that many people have. My fathers for example is in his land and cattle, he is slowly winding it down as he ages, he has less cattle each year and he either rents land or will eventually sell it. If he cared enough, his pension would be better than most civil servants if he maximised his return. This was from working hard and investing in land and other things as a young man. On paper though, most public sector pensions are better but in reality the aren't.

CramCycle

Pkiernan wrote: »

Not sure why you're choosing to personally attack me, but I have reported it.

My figures are from here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.businessworld.ie/financial-news/New-survey-reveals-Irish-people-s-views-on-a-good-retirement-572802.html&ved=2ahUKEwjh46S859zrAhXpShUIHZXvAx4QFjABegQIBBAD&usg=AOvVaw1QneH5qUTCiRyK97YJp07y

Average private pension fund in Ireland will pay 4800 per year. Less than one third of the public service pension.

A survey that shows that over 64%of private respondents have not contributed to a pension bar the state one.

Pkiernan wrote: »

Public service pension averages from the Orish Times.

I guess they are out to get you too?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/public-sector-pensions-worth-80-more-than-those-in-private-sector-1.3726553%3fmode=amp

Do you read the articles you post?

Geuze

gmisk wrote: »

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I thought retirement age was 65? I think it has been in any department I have worked in

Hired pre 2004 = 60 for most PS, I think.

Geuze

The typical pension of a currently retired teacher, 700 pw, is good.

The Single PS scheme from 2013 onwards is less generous.

CBear1993

I don’t get this forum. Is it just simply to bicker between public and private? I see a lot of sniping, can’t people just accept the benefits from both sides, and that some people may be suited better to one over the other ?

Private sector wages have no cap on them, whereas you’ve salary ranges in public jobs and generally pay less from my understanding (although a young enough understanding albeit!) and hours would be better in public jobs? I envy my friend who’s an engineer with a county council and does 8-4:30 or something. Meanwhile an engineer with a private construction firm could easily do 7-7+ 5 days a week with no overtime above his 8-5 contracted hours

So does it not even out overall?

For instance in my field, the earning potential for a Construction or commercial director has no ceiling depending on the private firm.
Whereas the same role for a government body would be way less, but I’m guessing the pension is class among other benefits. You get shag all health insurance or anything in a private firm in construction anyway.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Hired pre 2004 = 60 for most PS, I think.

not my recollection

can go at 60, but not mandatory by any means

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Deleted User wrote: »

not my recollection

can go at 60, but not mandatory by any means

Only ones I'm aware of mandatory retirement at 60 are the Defence Forces and Gardai.

CBear1993

CBear1993 wrote: »

I don’t get this forum. Is it just simply to bicker between public and private? I see a lot of sniping, can’t people just accept the benefits from both sides, and that some people may be suited better to one over the other ?

Private sector wages have no cap on them, whereas you’ve salary ranges in public jobs and generally pay less from my understanding (although a young enough understanding albeit!) and hours would be better in public jobs? I envy my friend who’s an engineer with a county council and does 8-4:30 or something. Meanwhile an engineer with a private construction firm could easily do 7-7+ 5 days a week with no overtime above his 8-5 contracted hours

So does it not even out overall?

For instance in my field, the earning potential for a Construction or commercial director has no ceiling depending on the private firm.
Whereas the same role for a government body would be way less, but I’m guessing the pension is class among other benefits. You get shag all health insurance or anything in a private firm in construction anyway.

in general i think you'll find most will agree with you.

there are differences and trade-offs to each sector (and of course depending on the individual career you have within either)

you'll find that tolerance for the allowance of easily-swatted propaganda in these threads is low, however.

public servants that worked through the last crash should know well enough that a toxic anti-ps narrative left unchecked gains a momentum very quickly

and unfortunately our unions rarely seem to be able to put up a decent fight for us

so it seems wise to at least challenge the scutter directly when it comes up on threads. the odd person might at least see it and inform themselves, i hope

if nothing else it might save some poor sod signing up to get rich off the pension!

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

Only ones I'm aware of mandatory retirement at 60 are the Defence Forces and Gardai.

thats true, but as far as i know youd be getting something from 60- not full whack but lump sum and the pension less COAP, say

CBear1993

Deleted User wrote: »

in general i think you'll find most will agree with you.

there are differences and trade-offs to each sector (and of course depending on the individual career you have within either)

you'll find that tolerance for the allowance of easily-swatted propaganda in these threads is low, however.

public servants that worked through the last crash should know well enough that a toxic anti-ps narrative left unchecked gains a momentum very quickly

and unfortunately our unions rarely seem to be able to put up a decent fight for us

so it seems wise to at least challenge the scutter directly when it comes up on threads. the odd person might at least see it and inform themselves, i hope

if nothing else it might save some poor sod signing up to get rich off the pension!

Yeah, if I ever see the odd public sector role come up in my field I do apply but I hear they’re very competitive.
Plus my partners dad never stops banging on about the pension. It must be class

MuchoTrails

Most public sector pensions if you are on a A stamp is simply 1/80 of your salary for every year you work and pay full stamps and superannuation (pension contribution). So if you work 40 years you will receive 40/80 (50%) of your salary as pension.

But you receive no state pension, so when you're slating public servants for receiving this so called amazing pension bear in mind they pay the same rates of PAYE and PRSI as you, but DO NOT receive state pension. Plus they also pay income levy. So if a public and private worker both have same gross salary the public worker will come out with less.

The superannuation is deducted every pay packet so it must be remembered that to receive the 50% of salary in a pension they will have to have paid in for 40 years. If you paid into a private pension imagine how big it would be if you had it for 40 years. Plus the state contributary pension on top.

Plus the public pension is taxed, no tax on the state pension. And if public workers work beyond 40 years they are still expected to pay superannuation but pension they receive doesn't get any bigger.

HerrKuehn

MuchoTrails wrote: »

Most public sector pensions if you are on a A stamp is simply 1/80 of your salary for every year you work and pay full stamps and superannuation (pension contribution). So if you work 40 years you will receive 40/80 (50%) of your salary as pension.

But you receive no state pension, so when you're slating public servants for receiving this so called amazing pension bear in mind they pay the same rates of PAYE and PRSI as you, but DO NOT receive state pension. Plus they also pay income levy. So if a public and private worker both have same gross salary the public worker will come out with less.

The superannuation is deducted every pay packet so it must be remembered that to receive the 50% of salary in a pension they will have to have paid in for 40 years. If you paid into a private pension imagine how big it would be if you had it for 40 years. Plus the state contributary pension on top.

Plus the public pension is taxed, no tax on the state pension. And if public workers work beyond 40 years they are still expected to pay superannuation but pension they receive doesn't get any bigger.

If a public sector worker on the newer pension (including PRSI contributions) has 40 years service, can they retire earlier than 67? I mean will the state pension portion of it be paid earlier than the normal state pension age? Or will they only receive the non state pension portion of it? Genuine question, I cant find the answer to this anywhere.

state pension does not get paid until you reach state pension age

CBear1993

CBear1993 wrote: »

Yeah, if I ever see the odd public sector role come up in my field I do apply but I hear they’re very competitive.
Plus my partners dad never stops banging on about the pension. It must be class

pre 95, yep

post 95, you get what you pay for, but yep good pension

post 2014, tbh its average

doc22

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/state-subsidises-public-sector-retirees-to-cover-gap-until-state-pension-1.4146539

A pensions consultant has highlighted the inequity in the pensions system which sees public sector workers who retire before the State pension age paid a supplementary government pension while private sector employees are not

doc22

doc22 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/state-subsidises-public-sector-retirees-to-cover-gap-until-state-pension-1.4146539

A pensions consultant has highlighted the inequity in the pensions system which sees public sector workers who retire before the State pension age paid a supplementary government pension while private sector employees are not

fair point, never quite fully understood the intricacies of this one but on face of it it would make up the shortfall from retirement through to COAP kicking in

id only note that the retiree pays pension and prsi contributions from day 1 towards their retirement benefits, and that supplementary kicks in if you arent working and dont qualify for any other social welfare benefit


that is to say: "a private sector worker does not get this" may not be a fair comment- has this compared private sector worker made payments (prsi and pension) throughout their career on a pension that is understood from day 1 to be integrated?

if not, its not a fair point, really. that private sector retiree gets their full benefit as paid for on the day they retire. the public retiree does not, and this component reflects that.

not, perhaps, as sellable a point as "this is unfair, its a difference!" but i hope that explanation does make sense to anyone interested in looking at it

HerrKuehn

Deleted User wrote: »

fair point, never quite fully understood the intricacies of this one but on face of it it would make up the shortfall from retirement through to COAP kicking in

id only note that the retiree pays pension and prsi contributions from day 1 towards their retirement benefits, and that supplementary kicks in if you arent working and dont qualify for any other social welfare benefit


that is to say: "a private sector worker does not get this" may not be a fair comment- has this compared private sector worker made payments (prsi and pension) throughout their career on a pension that is understood from day 1 to be integrated?

if not, its not a fair point, really. that private sector retiree gets their full benefit as paid for on the day they retire. the public retiree does not, and this component reflects that.

not, perhaps, as sellable a point as "this is unfair, its a difference!" but i hope that explanation does make sense to anyone interested in looking at it

Well it seems to indicate that any raising of the pension age will only affect private sector workers. I mean, you can dress it up any way you like but it seems that is the case. This should be more widely known.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

not my recollection

can go at 60, but not mandatory by any means

Yes, sorry, when I say 60, I didn't mean PS must retire at 60.

Geuze

MuchoTrails wrote: »

Most public sector pensions if you are on a A stamp is simply 1/80 of your salary for every year you work and pay full stamps and superannuation (pension contribution). So if you work 40 years you will receive 40/80 (50%) of your salary as pension.

But you receive no state pension, so when you're slating public servants for receiving this so called amazing pension bear in mind they pay the same rates of PAYE and PRSI as you, but DO NOT receive state pension. Plus they also pay income levy. So if a public and private worker both have same gross salary the public worker will come out with less.

Just to be clear on this.

PS hired pre April 95

They do not pay full-rate 4% PRSI, they pay lower PRSI.
They can't get IB, JSB or the State pension
They pay 6.5% pension cont
Since 2009/2010 they pay the PRD/ASC at 10%
The pension is (1/80)(yrs), so for 40 years it's 50% of final salary.



PS hired after April 1995
They do pay full-rate 4% PRSI.
They can get IB, JSB or the State pension
They pay 6.5% pension cont
Since 2009/2010 they pay the PRD/ASC at 10%
The pension is (1/80)(yrs), so for 40 years it's 50% of final salary.

BUT, the pension is made up of State Pension + integrated/co-ordinated work pension


So a PS hired after 1995 pays PRSI, and will receive a State Pension, but their work pension will be less than their pre95 colleague.

Geuze

doc22 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/state-subsidises-public-sector-retirees-to-cover-gap-until-state-pension-1.4146539

A pensions consultant has highlighted the inequity in the pensions system which sees public sector workers who retire before the State pension age paid a supplementary government pension while private sector employees are not

Yes, this is designed to leave the PRSI class D and class A worker on the same basis.

Examples

Teacher hired 1990, no State Pension, retires at age 63 after 40 years service, gets full pension at age 63, say 700 per week.

Teacher hired 1996, pays full-rate PRSI, will get State Pension.
Retires at 63 after 40 years, but only gets the work pension element, say 450 per week. Must wait until 67 for State Pension.

Both workers have done 40 years, both earned same wages, both retire at same age.

But the pre95 class D person gets 700 pw at age 63, whereas the post95 doesn't.


So, there is a little-known supp pension, with conditions attached, that pays out until the COAP starts.

crossman47

Is it not also the case, for more recent recruits, that pension is based on average salary over career? Genuine question, I thought that applied now.

StackSteevens

crossman47 wrote: »

Is it not also the case, for more recent recruits, that pension is based on average salary over career? Genuine question, I thought that applied now.

Correct.

The career averaging pension model has applied to all PS recruits since 1 Jan 2013.

Jucifer

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, this is designed to leave the PRSI class D and class A worker on the same basis.

Examples

Teacher hired 1990, no State Pension, retires at age 63 after 40 years service, gets full pension at age 63, say 700 per week.

Teacher hired 1996, pays full-rate PRSI, will get State Pension.
Retires at 63 after 40 years, but only gets the work pension element, say 450 per week. Must wait until 67 for State Pension.

Both workers have done 40 years, both earned same wages, both retire at same age.

But the pre95 class D person gets 700 pw at age 63, whereas the post95 doesn't.


So, there is a little-known supp pension, with conditions attached, that pays out until the COAP starts.

Also, post 2013 can retire before the age of 68 but only get the work part and it is actuarially reduced on a cost neutral basis even if you have 40 years service I.e. you can access your pension early but you get less to reflect the fact you are spreading it out over a longer period.

HerrKuehn

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, this is designed to leave the PRSI class D and class A worker on the same basis.

Examples

Teacher hired 1990, no State Pension, retires at age 63 after 40 years service, gets full pension at age 63, say 700 per week.

Teacher hired 1996, pays full-rate PRSI, will get State Pension.
Retires at 63 after 40 years, but only gets the work pension element, say 450 per week. Must wait until 67 for State Pension.

Both workers have done 40 years, both earned same wages, both retire at same age.

But the pre95 class D person gets 700 pw at age 63, whereas the post95 doesn't.


So, there is a little-known supp pension, with conditions attached, that pays out until the COAP starts.

In what sense does the class A person getting the state pension?
The state pension has the following conditions:

1) It starts paying at X years old
2) It pays out Y per week
3) Contributory currently pays out if enough stamps.

There is a risk that this could be means tested in the future. I mean if a private sector worker has managed to put together a decent pension it isn't inconceivable that they could say, "state pension only pays out if you have less than 1m in assets"

Changes in any of these conditions will have no effect on PS retirees though right? It seems to me in 1995 the idea was to get the new PS members to pay higher PRSI, nothing else.

I really think that every time a politician starts talking about raising the pension age, it should be made clear they mean raising the private sector pension age.