Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Private vs Public

2»

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    beauf wrote: »
    You've also got to consider if you'll get 40yrs service and/or be able to buy back years if short.

    The cost of purchasing back years (notional service) is prohibitive- and actually, from a monetary perspective, costs more than you are likely to be disbursed when it comes due. Seriously- the tables are staggeringly expensive. Most public sector employees buy AVCs in the private sector (Lyons Financial do a special one for the public sector for example) rather than purchasing notional service.

    They revise the tables on which the price of notional service is based periodically. Following one such review (back in 2003) the number of public sector employees availing of the option to purchase notional service fell off a cliff. Its only gotten even more expensive since.

    AVCs are popular in the public sector- notional service, not anymore. Anyone who bought notional service prior to 2004- got a sweetheart deal- that will never ever be repeated again.........


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    salonfire wrote: »
    That's not true. Public sector workers are - disgracefully - paid a supplementary pension as a replacement for the rising OAP, in affect raising the OAP impacts private workers only



    That's a complete lie. Someone on 60k in the post 1995 scheme pays about 7.8% of their total salary in contributions, legacy and asc.

    There are thresholds below which no deduction is applied, (€24000 for the net deduction, €34000 for the asc deduction), apart from the 1.5% gross.

    It's astounding how people in the civil and public sector on Boards continue to peddle lies and mistruths on how much they contribute to their pensions.

    Ive set out above in some detail where id come to an approx figure of maybe around 11 or 12% for my contributions.

    I also pointed out where my advice and comments were relevant to the op and questions asked

    Its been pointed out a few times that the pre 95 is a totally different beast to the post 2014 pension, why you would pick the former as if it were relevant at all to someone asking a question today is transparently obvious.

    Your language is unseemly to the point of propaganda again and i doubt very much that anyone asking for an unskewed answer for their own circumstances could feel too sure of any advice based on your posts.

    So what exactly is your purpose here?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The cost of purchasing back years (notional service) is prohibitive- and actually, from a monetary perspective, costs more than you are likely to be disbursed when it comes due. Seriously- the tables are staggeringly expensive. Most public sector employees buy AVCs in the private sector (Lyons Financial do a special one for the public sector for example) rather than purchasing notional service.

    They revise the tables on which the price of notional service is based periodically. Following one such review (back in 2003) the number of public sector employees availing of the option to purchase notional service fell off a cliff. Its only gotten even more expensive since.

    AVCs are popular in the public sector- notional service, not anymore. Anyone who bought notional service prior to 2004- got a sweetheart deal- that will never ever be repeated again.........

    It used to be am investment if you felt you were likely to advance- course, youd to balance that against your being less able to afford it in a lower grade!

    With the single scheme now ive no idea whether there's a case for it at all, certainly couldnt be a cheap option at all as you say


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    salonfire wrote: »
    That's not true. Public sector workers are - disgracefully - paid a supplementary pension as a replacement for the rising OAP, in affect raising the OAP impacts private workers only

    Supplementary pension, to the best of my knowledge- is only paid to the pre-1995 staff. It was phased out for new entrants a long time ago. New entrants, if they retire prior to the vesting of the OAP- are expected to claim unemployment benefit.

    Heather Humphrys made a statement on this in January- where she said those who retire (both public and private) at age 65 will no longer be subject to this anachronism going forwards. I'm not sure she told DSP what she was up to- because they still haven't implemented the change- though it is early days.
    salonfire wrote: »
    That's a complete lie. Someone on 60k in the post 1995 scheme pays about 7.8% of their total salary in contributions, legacy and asc.

    There are thresholds below which no deduction is applied, (€24000 for the net deduction, €34000 for the asc deduction), apart from the 1.5% gross.

    It's astounding how people in the civil and public sector on Boards continue to peddle lies and mistruths on how much they contribute to their pensions.

    There are 6 distinct schemes in place for the post 1995 staff- each scheme progressively more expensive or progressively less generous (or both) for new entrants. Simply saying post 1995 is akin to Fr. Ted looking out the window with Dougal and the toy cow- and comparing it to the cow that is far away. The percentage that public sector employees pay- varies greatly- depending on when they were first employed in the public sector (and what ground was conceded by their unions in the intervening period of time).

    Pensions are a massive ticking time bomb in Ireland- and the workers of today are going to be looking back at the golden era that the pensioners of today have- wondering how come they can't have the same.

    We need to have a legitimate discussion about pensions in Ireland- and how to fund them- however, we also need to realise that the largess that we are bestowing on the pensioners of today- is completely and utterly unaffordable. Our pay-as-you-go approach to pensions and social welfare- is so bust that its just not funny. And yet- we refuse to make the hard decisions- probably because whichever politician mentions it, is going to have their head handed to them on a platter.

    Its not even a public versus a private debate- if the cupboard is bare, the cupboard is bare, period.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Its been pointed out a few times that the pre 95 is a totally different beast to the post 2014 pension, why you would pick the former as if it were relevant at all to someone asking a question today is transparently obvious.

    You might want to read what I actually wrote. It was to correct The_Conducter's example.
    salonfire wrote: »
    Someone on 60k in the post 1995 scheme pays about 7.8% of their total salary in contributions, legacy and asc.
    i doubt very much that anyone asking for an unskewed answer for their own circumstances could feel too sure of any advice based on your posts.
    Feel free to correct anything I calculated incorrectly then.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,573 ✭✭✭KaneToad


    There are 6 distinct schemes in place for the post 1995 staff- each scheme progressively more expensive or progressively less generous (or both) for new entrants.

    Can you outline these 6 scheme changes via a rough timeline? Or is there a link you could post that shows them. It would be interesting reading to see the stages of decline in the value of the pension for the public sector worker.

    Thanks.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Supplementary pension, to the best of my knowledge- is only paid to the pre-1995 staff.


    My impression from the Irish Times is that it applies to all public service retirees. Pre-95 don't even get an OAP so it's irrelevant to them if the eligibility age goes up
    “Supplementary pension is available, on application, to retirees in order to make up the shortfall in pension for the period between date of retirement and the age of eligibility for State Pension (Contributory) where the non-payment of Social Welfare Benefits is through no fault of the retiree,” the explanatory note for public service retirees reads.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    salonfire wrote: »
    My impression from the Irish Times is that it applies to all public service retirees. Pre-95 don't even get an OAP so it's irrelevant to them if the eligibility age goes up

    There was a transition pension, available to both public and private sector employees- until 2014, when DSP in their infinite wisdom, decided to close it- and force those who were eligible to retire before the age at which the old age pension vests- claim the dole instead.

    It came about in 2014- and was the subject of numerous representations to the Department- such as the one from Age Action Ireland who called it 'an affront to the dignity of our elderly to force them to claim unemployment benefit until such time as the NCOAP and the COAP vests'.

    The government undertook to look into it- the result of which was a statement by Heather Humphrys in January- modifying the scheme into one akin to the previous transitional pension which was abolished in 2014- whereby the recipients would not have to formally sign on and pretend they were seeking work.

    The remaining o/s matter- according to Age Action Ireland- is the difference of EUR45 a week between the COAP payment and the unemployment payment- which means people on the transitional scheme will be down roughly 2.5k per annum on where they'd be if they were allowed simply claim the pension benefit.

    The new transitional arrangements- are not yet in place (to the best of my knowledge- if you know better, please feel free to correct me).

    The transitional scheme applies to both public and private sector recipients.

    Also- public sector employees have had their age of compulsory retirement increased to 70- so they don't end up needing the scheme (in many private sector posts, including bank staff and others- no such increase in the age of compulsory retirement has yet occurred).


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    salonfire wrote: »
    You might want to read what I actually wrote. It was to correct The_Conducter's example.




    Feel free to correct anything I calculated incorrectly then.

    Youre right about pre/post 95, sorry about that.

    I set my own actual percentages in a post a few days back. I repeated the figure i'd arrive at, with interpretation of what to do with the 12k COAP/PRSI. 11, maybe 12%

    Id question your figures based on that. My payslip.

    Thats an absolute figure so takes into account the thresholds for ASC and all that.

    If the posters asking for advice are post 95 then, depending on what grade they are at (and therefore the % of their final pension that 12k would be, etc) they can start from there

    If they are single scheme its not too much use to them alas but we can certainly advise them not to join the PS for the pension if that were the case.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 716 ✭✭✭houseyhouse


    barrier86 wrote: »
    I went from a decent paying job with great perks and career prospects to a clerical officer role in civil service. Took a fairly big pay cut but at the time I could afford to do it. I’m happy I took the job in the public sector. I had a terrible first year in the civil service but that has sorted itself out and I am delighted to have made the change.

    I say stay!

    I am considering something similar. Have you found you were able to progress reasonably quickly through the public sector? Were your previous experiences valuable in that respect? I want to move but don't want to be on 25k for long considering have family obligations etc.


  • Posts: 717 [Deleted User]


    I am considering something similar. Have you found you were able to progress reasonably quickly through the public sector? Were your previous experiences valuable in that respect? I want to move but don't want to be on 25k for long considering have family obligations etc.
    This is almost entirely down to the frequency of competitions. In the last recessions there was basically nearly 10 years with feck all or no recruitment. Try and go in as an EO.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    My two cents on it are that if you're willing to do a bit of work and have nice qualifications/ always give a good impression of yourself you'll always do better in the private sector.

    But you're probably better off in the public sector if you want a guaranteed work life balance and have either very specific or very general skills.


    A good rule of thumb is that if people are constantly at you trying to give you a job, or get you to join a committee or give professional advice outside of your current job you'll do fine in the private sector.
    If that's not happening you either don't have what people want or you're not giving out that vibe, and you should stay or get in the security of the public sector.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    Its a difficult one this OP. Having worked in both, I think there's a number of misconceptions, having worked in both.
    1. I think the public sector view of the private sector as being some place where you get flogged to within an inch of your life every day, and only the bottom line matters, is just not true. Any employer who operates like that is not going to hold on to people, or be able to recruit them with the advent of review sites for prospective employee. There are of course employers who absolutely flog their employees, and some of these have Public Sector contracts, but I think employers realise the competitive market they work in and the fools errand that is flogging their staff.
    2. While the Public Sector pension is undisputedly better (and guaranteed), you can still amass a top pension in the private sector where an employer matches your contributions in particular - many employers match 10-12-15% at this stage. And you can make AVC's with bonuses, etc - where the tax man will take half of it otherwise - to further improve your pot. If there isn't matching employer contributions, this does become significantly harder though.
    3. There are people in both who live for lunch time, or for 5 o'clock. But I think there's a few more of these in the public sector and I have known a few of these. I don't know how you could spend your life in such an environment, regardless of the job security or pension on retirement.

    There's for and against both. If you want job security and a guaranteed pension (as long as you get to retirement age!) then the public sector is without doubt the place to go.

    If you are very ambitious, don't mind the hard graft for a while and always seeking out the next challenge and constantly looking to better yourself and want to move up the chain quicker rather than "waiting your turn", then you will possibly do better in the private sector.

    As with every job, there's for and against both. I'd be slow to spend my life in 1 job just because there's a better pension or job security though. A mix of both is probably a good thing to do in your life - every job has its good and bad sides and you see the warts on both sides of the fence (which I have strayed clear of here!).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭floorpie


    3. There are people in both who live for lunch time, or for 5 o'clock. But I think there's a few more of these in the public sector and I have known a few of these. I don't know how you could spend your life in such an environment, regardless of the job security or pension on retirement.
    ...
    If you are very ambitious, don't mind the hard graft for a while and always seeking out the next challenge and constantly looking to better yourself and want to move up the chain quicker rather than "waiting your turn", then you will possibly do better in the private sector.
    If there are more clockwatchers in public sector, and you're ambitious and hard working, wouldn't it be better to be in the public sector? I.e. less competition for higher grades? Or is there some reason that ambition isn't rewarded?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    floorpie wrote: »
    If there are more clockwatchers in public sector, and you're ambitious and hard working, wouldn't it be better to be in the public sector? I.e. less competition for higher grades? Or is there some reason that ambition isn't rewarded?

    I reckon the progress up the chain would be quicker in the private sector - as I said about all the above, just my thoughts and personal experience.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭floorpie


    I reckon the progress up the chain would be quicker in the private sector - as I said about all the above, just my thoughts and personal experience.

    Ah I believe you, just wondering, thanks :) I'm trying to weigh up the pros and cons myself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    floorpie wrote: »
    Ah I believe you, just wondering, thanks :) I'm trying to weigh up the pros and cons myself.

    Yeah, the perfect place to work doesn't exist, its all a balancing act of what you want in my view.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I reckon the progress up the chain would be quicker in the private sector - as I said about all the above, just my thoughts and personal experience.

    I would agree. There tends to be more office politics in public sector.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,881 ✭✭✭TimeToShine


    I think the public pension is a bit overstated, there are some companies offering amazing pensions nowadays, I've heard of double and triple matching (employee contribute up to 6%, employer 12% or 18%), flat 15-20% of base salary contribution, hell some will even give you shares as part of your pension plan.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    I think the public pension is a bit overstated, there are some companies offering amazing pensions nowadays, I've heard of double and triple matching (employee contribute up to 6%, employer 12% or 18%), flat 15-20% of base salary contribution, hell some will even give you shares as part of your pension plan.

    I agree and made the very same point above, the big variable is there could be an economic crash the day before you retire and Jordan Belfour has left your pension fund in a volatile market!
    The big difference between the public pension and the private one is the public one is guaranteed, whereas the private one goes up and down in value over time. While you should be advised to move more of it in to a safer fund as you near retirement, that isn't a given.
    But like you say, employers are now matching significant percentages as a means to head hunt people. It does mean you can build a significant retirement pot so I too think it is overstated. If it isn't matched, there is no comparison.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    I reckon the progress up the chain would be quicker in the private sector - as I said about all the above, just my thoughts and personal experience.

    My personal experience is the opposite.

    I’ve moved from the private sector to the civil service in Dublin. (None of this would apply outside Dublin)

    One of the things in the civil service is there’s a very clear and structured promotion path. None of my previous jobs had that.

    In the private sector it was always a bit woolly. For internal promotions it’d be waiting for someone to leave and then probably competing with colleagues. For outside jobs it was looking for needles in a haystack to find something to apply for, then trying to gauge its level & salary and tailor everything to it. I was pretty good at interviews but if Bob was better, Bob got the job because there was only one job.

    I also often seemed to end up pigeon holed in a slightly outside core area which limited movement opportunities.

    In the civil service, they just run a competition every two years. The level, salary etc of the job are crystal clear. You stick your hat in the ring. Do your best through the process, finish it out with one interview and if you meet the standard, you’re in. The promotion process is a palaver but there are hundreds of jobs at each level. There’s a risk of a moratorium but worst case, I still have a job.

    I started in late 2017 as an EO, with a big group of other EOs. We’re pretty much all AO, HEO or AP now. The two I can think of who aren’t had taken sideways moves with interesting experience and extra salary attached (Brussels jobs, that kind of thing)

    Which brings me to another point, outside of promotions there’s a huge amount of movement in the CS at each grade level (except maybe AO). If you’re not happy or not gaining the experience you want you can often shuffle yourself to a different unit.

    Basically, Dublin based civil servants with any bit of gumption can usually get themselves promoted quite quickly.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Basically, Dublin based civil servants with any bit of gumption can usually get themselves promoted quite quickly.

    However, less than half of civil servants are Dublin based- and if you aren't Dublin based, you can languish out in a decentralised office for a long period of time- even getting to first place on a HEO or AP panel- and simply sit there without any movements happening.........

    A big bone of contention is people taking promotions in Dublin- and then wrangling transfers internally to get back to their decentralised locations in their new grade- while those in the decentralised locations can effectively get locked out of promotional prospects..........

    Obviously if you're young and don't have children in school or other ties to a specific community- your options are a whole lot better, however, for a not inconsiderable cohort of civil servants- they will have to make a choice about putting their family first or their career first, which is a choice that is far easier for younger people to make.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44 atwal


    What has the original poster decided?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Started an OnlyFans


Advertisement