blanch152 wrote: » Nope, it doesn't. It has nothing to do with this point. Not a single person will lose pension rights, the issue is who pays for them. Under the old Scheme, Harris could have transferred his service from the PSNI into the Gardai under certain circumstances (I would need to know a lot more about his personal circumstances to be able to tell). However, given his date of recruitment, he is a member of the Single Pension Scheme, and there is currently no provision for the purchase of service or transfer of service in that scheme. It is something that D/PER should fix.
blanch152 wrote: » With Brexit, the party that wants something (the UK) has to pay a price. Would it be any different for the party that wants something (Ireland) having to pay in the case of unity?
downcow wrote: » Remember that approx one million people in this new welcoming state will still see their roots, history and culture in what you refer to as the nefarious British State
jm08 wrote: » Looking at this (from NI Policing Board) it would seem that the employer makes a 25.1% contribution while the employee makes a contribution between about 11 and 15% depending on year they joined (1988 or 2006 Scheme).https://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/sites/nipb/files/media-files/DOJ%20circular.pdf What happens to the Employer's 25.1% contribution?
Junkyard Tom wrote: » When I refer to the British state I'm referring to its blood-soaked history in Ireland. I'd like to think Unionist 'roots history and culture' has a bit more depth than celebrating British colonialism.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Of course there will be costs, who has denied that? Partition has failed as well as the state it has created has failed. And can you say, with hand on heart that a British government that was willing to throw unionism under the bus re; Brexit, won't be willing to absorb a cost too, to finally solve the 'Irish' problem for them?
blanch152 wrote: » I look at the history of the discussions on Brexit and I think you have got this one completely wrong. The EU proposed a Northern Ireland-only backstop. It was the UK who pushed for a UK-wide backstop in order to keep the integrity of the UK intact. You may well believe that this was only at the behest of the DUP, but the facts are that the UK did not throw unionism under the bus.
blanch152 wrote: » Which scheme are you asking about? The 1988, 2006 or 2015 one? Each will have different arrangements for contributions, benefits and funding.https://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/police-pensions The critical document is this one:https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/inside-the-psni/our-departments/finance-and-support-services/documents/pension-report-2016-17.pdf "All Schemes are unfunded defined benefit schemes"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#Funding "In an unfunded defined benefit pension, no assets are set aside and the benefits are paid for by the employer or other pension sponsor as and when they are paid. Pension arrangements provided by the state in most countries in the world are unfunded, with benefits paid directly from current workers' contributions and taxes. This method of financing is known as pay-as-you-go." Essentially then, on the day of unity, as other legal obligations transfer to the new State, the transfer of the liability to fund future pension payments to members of the PSNI will transfer to the new State unless something else is agreed. Given that the pensions are currently funded by way of current contributions plus subvention as in the South, why should it be any different? Interestingly, the pension contribution paid by employees is 11%, as opposed to 6.5% in the South. How should this change with unity? Is it fair that public servants in the South should pay a charge of 5% on their pensions? Or should members of the PSNI get a benefit of a cut of 5% in pension contributions with the shortfall made up by the Irish taxpayer? Harmonisation costs money for someone. It either costs the taxpayer or the recpient of the benefit. This is not understood widely yet, but is likely to become the big issue in any referendum.
jm08 wrote: » The same system applied in the EU/UK brexit negotiation and the UK is accepting its liability for pensions even though it was Pay-as-you-go. And in fact, they are continuing on the Pay-As-You-Go system (it will be a pittance to the British Government in the scheme of things). I think you misunderstand the Pay-As-You-Go system - one thing it doesn't mean is that you forget what you have already agreed to (which in this case is 25.1% of pension contributions for each year served). As for the harmonisation - that can be done over time.
blanch152 wrote: » Which scheme are you asking about? The 1988, 2006 or 2015 one? Each will have different arrangements for contributions, benefits and funding.https://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/police-pensions The critical document is this one:https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/inside-the-psni/our-departments/finance-and-support-services/documents/pension-report-2016-17.pdf "All Schemes are unfunded defined benefit schemes"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#Funding "In an unfunded defined benefit pension, no assets are set aside and the benefits are paid for by the employer or other pension sponsor as and when they are paid. Pension arrangements provided by the state in most countries in the world are unfunded, with benefits paid directly from current workers' contributions and taxes. This method of financing is known as pay-as-you-go." Essentially then, on the day of unity, as other legal obligations transfer to the new State, the transfer of the liability to fund future pension payments to members of the PSNI will transfer to the new State unless something else is agreed. Given that the pensions are currently funded by way of current contributions plus subvention as in the South, why should it be any different?
blanch152 wrote: » That is a very one-sided view. The British brought many good things to Ireland. Most of us have some element of British ancestry in our family for a start.
blanch152 wrote: » The liabilities of the PSNI pension schemes are around €8bn, hardly a pittance. I don't misunderstand the pay-as-you-go system, I understand it fully. There is no fund, there is only liability. The current employer and current employees pay for the pensions of past employees. Post-Unity, the current employer will be the new Irish State.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where is this written down? Can you link to anything other than your opinion? Seems to me you are doing a bit of 'magic money tree' thinking here yourself. These pension payments are not magicked up from nowhere. They are paid because the employee gives benefit in kind to the state by working for it. Ireland has received no benefit, why would it be responsible for the pensions? Have you conveniently forgotten that May was ready to sign a deal before the DUP pulled a strop?
jm08 wrote: » Those who have British ancestry benefited at a cost to the indigenous people of Ireland.
blanch152 wrote: » I have provided several links to show that the current pensions schemes are unfunded defined benefit schemes. That means the current employer (the Irish state post-unity) pays for the pensions. This is actually one of the simpler aspects of the unification issue. I haven't seen a single link from any poster refuting what I have said. In fact, the only link posted - from jm08 in relation to current contributions - only bolstered my argument.
blanch152 wrote: » I don't think there is a single person on this island who doesn't have British ancestry except possibly members of the Travelling Community or those on islands.
jm08 wrote: » The current employer (British Gov) has agreed to contribute 25.1% to each person's pension fund per year they are employed by them. How can they offload that legal responsibility to their employees?
blanch152 wrote: » The British brought many good things to Ireland.
Most of us have some element of British ancestry in our family for a start.
jm08 wrote: » Thats nonsense.
FrancieBrady wrote: » All you have done is post what the current arrangements are, you have posted no link to support your theory that pensions commitments would pass to a new state - none whatsoever.
blanch152 wrote: » Where do you get the reference to the current employer paying 25.1% to each person's pension fund? That would mean that they are operating a funded defined contribution pension scheme, which is simply untrue.
The PSNI pension scheme is an unfunded defined benefit scheme and I have provided links to firstly show that, and secondly what an unfunded defined benefit scheme means. In the context of the PSNI that means that the current employer pays 25.1% of the salary of current employees towards the cost of current pensions being paid. Similarly, the current employees make a payment towards the cost of current pensions being paid. Future pensions and future years of current pensions will be paid by future contributions from employers and employees. Therefore, when the new Irish State takes over, they will be contributing to the payment of whoever is then a pensioner. Furthermore, if the employer contribution falls short, the taxpayer makes up any difference. All of this has been explained with links.
blanch152 wrote: » https://owlcation.com/stem/Irish-Blood-Genetic-Identity "Today, people living the north of Spain in the region known as the Basque Country share many DNA traits with the Irish. However, the Irish also share their DNA to a large extent with the people of Britain, especially the Scottish and Welsh." "However, more recent studies confirm that when a complex picture is taken of Irish DNA, including both male and female lines of descent, the closest similarities are between the Irish and people living in Western Britain." One of the biggest arguments against nationalism as an ideology is that there really is no national identity any more.
volchitsa wrote: » That doesn't prove that the Irish have British ancestry though. It's just as likely that there is a common Celtic ancestry between the Welsh and the Irish, or even that the Irish colonised parts of western Britain (the Scottish Highlands for instance.)
Avatar MIA wrote: » Don't let him side track you. My father worked in London for a few years in the early 60's and to this day, despite being back in the ROI for over 50 years, still gets a UK pension every month.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I am just looking for a link...not a explanation of pension schemes. He doesn't seem to have anything of substance to back up his assertion that a new state would have to pay the pensions of former employees of agencies that no longer exist.
