c_man wrote: » So what? That's not what the person I was replying to said. They said they'll get E11k above the state pension, my figures relate to that (and give the private sector worker more years to get there, so should arguably be higher for a 40 year span).
relax carry on wrote: » Using your starting age of 22 and an average salary of 33k to get 50% of your previous retirement salary means 6.1% to 10.3%. The bulk of the 16500 the person retires on is made up of the PRSI funded state pension.
c_man wrote: » Doing some very rough figures here - http://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/LifeCycle/Useful-Resources/Pension-Calculator/ Assuming a salary of E33,000 (near enough the average/median wage), starting out at age 22 (unrealistic but let's go with it), retirement age of 68 (so 46 years contributions) in order to get an additional 11k... you'd need to start off with 16.5% of salary into the pot, rising to 22.9% at age 32 and 27.7% at age 37. Wow, those poor PS workers paying in 9%. How do they manage.
red ears wrote: » What do you think the average public service pension is? You'd nearly imagine everyone is retiring on 80k pensions. The average will retire on 11k more than the state pension someone will get even if they never worked a day in their life. Any those public servants will pay 9% of their wage towards that additional 11k for 40 years. Post 1995.
end of the road wrote: » that doesn't prove privatization of health care would be a good thing or would work. it just proves we need good management and oversight to insure our public services work. privatization of public services never works for the better.
salonfire wrote: » I have heard of all the horror stories of what people have to endure in the private hospitals like the Beacon or Mater Private. No wait, it's the HSE hospitals where people are treated like cattle.
red ears wrote: » They have already started using private care staff. They charge plenty for it but pay the staff a pittance. The rest goes to private profit. I'm not sure why the average man and woman on the street want this. Instead of a fair wage being paid to workers that will be spent in the economy. The money will end up in some millionare or billionaires account in Malta. I would say careful what you wish for regarding privitisation.
maudgonner wrote: » Why should the public sector be entitled to a pension that the private sector can only dream of? They seem unwilling to accept lower salaries as a trade off for the conditions they enjoy, so I don't see how those conditions are justified.
RustyNut wrote: » I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Why should private sector workers not be entitled to a decent salary and guaranteed pension? Try drag the bottom up not the top down.
goose2005 wrote: » How will making work conditions worse for public employees make conditions better for private employees? If my neighbour gets a pay cut I don't get a raise.
Persephone kindness wrote: » TD Pensions ..they serve one term and get life pension. No job gets that. Work for four years and a pension package ..hmm?
wordofwarning wrote: » OP what exactly is the benefit of privatisation if you want public services to the private sector for them to pay the same pension + pay to then charge a margin? There is zero benefit to the taxpayer. In fact, they are worse off as they are now paying more Public sector pensions are unsustainable. It is biaraze that as a civil servant you get a massive salary, a massive bonus payment at retirement and then a massive pension that you not paid for at all. It is being funded by general taxation ie a working person. At least in the US public sector pensions are often funded by member contributions ie not general taxation Public sector pensions are a ponzi scheme aka a pyramid scheme. They are being funded by current member contributions and general taxation. Current members are getting excellent benefits, but when there is less members in a few years which will happen. Everyone is ****ed. Well not everyone, as the teachers, nurses, civil servants etc are getting their pensions funded by general taxation. The only people who are ****ed is the taxpayer, paying sustainable pensions
mariaalice wrote: » Its in the broad area of health and social services where its happning the most. Look at private for profit companys providing fostering serviced.
twowheelsonly wrote: » That 'dream pension' is a myth in most cases. Only those that were in before '95 get the original 'Golden Goose' pension. Anyone after that is on a different scheme and anyone after 2004/05 is different again - in fact it appears that most of them would be far better off investing in a private pension. Makes for a lovely soundbyte but what exactly would you privatise ? Waste collection ? That's gone..... Toll roads ? That's gone.... Lotto ? That's gone.... Oil ? That's gone.... (Never was a state 'service' obviously but should have been..) Water ? Don't mention the war...... Seriously, what State Services would you privatise ? There's not actually a whole lot that you can privatise successfully without it costing each individual more money. If you go through each state department then they all have specific functions, some of which are quite simply 'not for profit' so no-one would want them. If companies could cherry pick the services they wanted then we'd be left with all of these ones and how would we fund them if the income was going into private hands ? Undoubtedly some of our services need to be streamlined - starting at the very top - but privatising them is not going to be the answer. Sometimes I wish we were a poor country again, when our bins were collected and all we complained about was road tax and the state of the roads and we didn't complain about each others wages.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/19a7a778b727ad07a3bbcea8101c61b3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
