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

Its official : public sector pay per hour is 49% higher than private sector

1…89111314…80

Comments

  • #302
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,006 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Am I not entitled to my opinion I never told you to fck off...I just think that you should wipe your fingers cause its spewing sh1t not typing fact......

    Lovely, there's no need for the abuse.


    you are entitled to your opinion the problem is that a lot of your stated opinions have no factual basis.


  • #303
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,612 ✭✭✭fliball123


    The Muppet wrote: »
    Lovely, there's no need for the abuse.


    you are entitled to your opinion the problem is that a lot of your stated opinions have no factual basis.

    So my opinion doesnt count neither doest the majority of the population or the Minister of Finance or Dame Edna or the different stats organisations CSO and ERSI who have stated that the P.S is over paid...No well you stay in your p.s bubble there and one day when you dont expect it a needle is going to puncture you bubble...


  • #304
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    fliball123 wrote: »
    The 2 groups that need to be convinced are the unions and the ps
    the 1 group that will need to take a stance is the IMF but if these constant figures keep coming up like in the OP I think the PS willl get a severe cut next year.

    Of course it will be cut, the only reason it hasn't been cut so far is an attempt to avoid strikes and win votes in the next election by the current government.


  • #305
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,612 ✭✭✭fliball123


    thebman wrote: »
    Of course it will be cut, the only reason it hasn't been cut so far is an attempt to avoid strikes and win votes in the next election by the current government.

    Cant argue with you there...but sure its going to be an interesting couple of years


  • #306
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    the only reason it hasn't been cut so far

    Perhaps you haven't noticed that it has been cut twice to an average of 14% so far.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    funny how the public sector sympathees are not posting anymore they must have gone home...No overtime for you boys tonight no...

    Since you are still here, why have you not produced some stats as I requested in post #203 to show that the average pay cut in the private sector has been greater than than the average paycut in the public sector?

    Do you agree that this contention is nonsense?


  • #308
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,049 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Ah so what you really mean is you want the PS staff to take all the pain because the government elected by all the people of the island F'd up!

    No, what he wants, is for the PS staff to take all the pain. Full stop. He said so himself...
    fliball123 wrote: »
    ...I would rather see your wages go down than my tax go up..

    The absolute definition of begrudgery. You only give a fcuk about your own financial situation, yet when the PS try to do the same, you cry foul and say tough sh1t? The worst case of "do as i say, not as i do" I've ever seen.
    fliball123 wrote: »
    and I for one will be voting for the party currently sein fein or FG who has prmomised to tackle the monster that is the public sector.......and I urge any other private sector employee to do the same...

    Absolutely ridiculous reason to vote for anyone, never mind the fact that you're wrong.
    irishh_bob wrote: »
    agreed , ps workers should not be benchmarked against private sector workers, instead they should be benchmarked against public servants in other european countries

    Agreed. As long as all the rip off merchants in the private sector start charging the same price for a loaf of bread, pint of milk etc as they do in those other european countries.
    fliball123 wrote: »
    Why not hit 300k instead of 1.8m people

    Because its fairer. Thats why.


  • #309
    neelyohara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 274 ✭✭neelyohara


    fliball123 wrote: »
    haha good man look I know things are getting heated we will just have to aggree to disagree but just something to ponder

    The majority of the population would aggree with this (well anyone not in the p.s who I know seem to be of the same idea)
    Most ecconomic experts and studies seem to agree

    I think the issue is that you believe that your tax pays specifically for your pension, where as other posters have pointed out that everyone - public or private - who pays tax is contributing to the OAP. It's just a large mixing bowl. Some of my tax will pay for the OAP but I'm not entitled to it. (We're also paying for the current OAPs and *shudder* when our generation get to that age the younger generation will pay for it. Although as you say, we'll probably be complete geriatrics by the time we get to retire.)

    If you would like to take out a private pension then you can and some of your salary will contribute to it. In the PS this is how the pension operates. The government automatically deducts their pension contribution from their salary so the idea of 'the tax payer is paying for PS pensions' is false. I don't have the figures to hand but I know that it isn't the case. If I can find the numbers I'll post them and a source.

    I'm not sure about the 10%. What are you asking? Why new entrants are only being cut by 10%?

    I don't think it's a fair statement to say that 'the PS is overpaid'. That is a very general and broad statement. There are many people in the PS who are getting a basic wage, below that of the general average. I would agree with you if you said there are areas/grades/individuals within the PS that are overpaid. I think you'll find almost all PS staff would agree to that one, but there isn't a damn thing we - as the employees - can do about it. I don't believe that anyone should earn the extortionate amounts that some of the fat cats do but this is something that the government let happen and they are going to have to resolve. Unfortunately the chances are it's going to be me or my colleagues who pay the price.

    I'm in the PS and living hand to mouth (I'd love a 49% raise!) and now living in a council house because I just can't afford to own a house or even privately rent one. Like many, many people in Ireland - public and private - I'm considering emigrating.

    While I might be a PS I'd hope that I have a balanced view. In my immediate family two of us work for the PS, one works for a private company and the other is a business owner. We are all feeling the recession.

    IMO I would point to the government and the banking crisis as to why Ireland is in the mess it is in. I'm all for public sector reform but when you start a PS vs Private argument it's the average Joe Bloggs who is trying their best to earn a living that ends up losing (regardless of what side you might be on).


  • #310
    neelyohara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 274 ✭✭neelyohara


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Perhaps you haven't noticed that it has been cut twice to an average of 14% so far.

    Exactly! How can someone believe that there weren't any cuts?


  • #311
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,607 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    fliball123 banned for seven days for ignoring the requirement for reasonable respect for other forum members, personalising the discussion and being abusive.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Thats arse its a contribution to the p.s overly generous pension..

    Its not, its a cut and every government minister i've heard on the airwaves has called it so. The ps pensions were agreed for years and people paid into them. Then the government come in and demand more money from public servants to go towards their pensions. They do not get anything additional in return.

    Its like your landlord putting up your rent, its still the same flat but now your paying more for it. But no its not a rent rise..... its a contribution to your overly splendid flat dear boy.

    If you can't see that the pension levy is a net loss for the public servants then i despair.


  • #313
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    sollar wrote: »
    Its not, its a cut and every government minister i've heard on the airwaves has called it so. The ps pensions were agreed for years and people paid into them. Then the government come in and demand more money from public servants to go towards their pensions. They do not get anything additional in return.

    Its like your landlord putting up your rent, its still the same flat but now your paying more for it. But no its not a rent rise..... its a contribution to your overly splendid flat dear boy.

    If you can't see that the pension levy is a net loss for the public servants then i despair.

    In fact its more for less, considering they revised the pension scheme for public servants.

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • #314
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    Spipov wrote: »
    id like to know where you are getting that from?

    because ive worked in both public and private sector, and the private sector salary is EXACTLY the same as the public sector. in fact, they base their salaries on how the public sector is going.

    seriously though, back it up with a link or a personal experience or something!





    would be very interested in knowing who you are referring to with the etc.

    GP's are self employed i gather, so lets assume its private sector. therefore, there are no public sector equivalent to this job.

    same with other doctor jobs, you have to compare equivalents. once you do, then you can say whether one is higher than the other.




    its not that they do not want more gp's or consultants, its because there is no creation of new posts. im going to leave the gp argument out because i am not the most aware of how the gp scheme goes,

    but for consultants, its not up to them to restrict the numbers, its the HSE and the ministry that have to sanction posts. Once a post/team/discipline needs more resources, then you can appoint consultants. since there is an embargo on recruitment, what is happening is there are VERY few new consultant jobs being created, but the ones who are retiring or leaving are replaced by the senior registrars that have qualified and are awaiting a job opening.


    both GP,s and consultants have a vested interest in thier being a cap on the number of new entrants into both sectors , surely you accept this , the GP sector is very anti competition in every way , sure you cant even visit a GP in drogheda if you happen to live in dundalk and vice versa , GP,s dont steal each others patients , they have an unwritten contract between each other to stay within thier own catchment area , the sector operates like a cartel


  • #315
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Thats b0ll0x I pay my taxes so I can recive my pension at 68 so I am paying for myself... people currently retired paid for their oap during their working yeaars..
    no one else pays for my pension bar me...I help to pay the public sector pensions...and as stated relief on private pensions has gone down to 33% tax relief and it will be nothing by the time 2015 comes into play so why hasnt the public pensions and the public sector not taken the same hits..



    Can you please remind me what the answer was for the 10% less but once again honestly I cant seem to find it

    Sorry I just seen it your response is convenience...will you come up out of it...The reason why is because you are over fcuking paid and the gov is trying its best to come up with ways to cut your salaries without the poxy unions bringing the country to a stand still...Convenience is the wasy that the cut was introduced not the reason for it so come back to me when you have a valid reason as outlined its because of the following

    P.S is overpaid
    current gov are afraid of the unions


    i presume you are aware that even your never paid a cent in tax , you are still entitled to the non contributory OAP ( 218 per week + perks ) and its only 14 euro per week less than the contributory one (232 ) , most people on this pension wouldnt have come near covering the cost based on what prsi contributions they made , such was the level of increase this past decade


  • #316
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    sollar wrote: »
    Its not, its a cut and every government minister i've heard on the airwaves has called it so. The ps pensions were agreed for years and people paid into them. Then the government come in and demand more money from public servants to go towards their pensions. They do not get anything additional in return.

    Its like your landlord putting up your rent, its still the same flat but now your paying more for it. But no its not a rent rise..... its a contribution to your overly splendid flat dear boy.

    If you can't see that the pension levy is a net loss for the public servants then i despair.

    Its never quiet as simple as that..
    Yes, it has been a direct pay cut to to PS staff.. and any sector is going to feel a cut of that size in their take home pay..

    But, the PS does not, and did not adequately fund their pensions.. There is a massive defecit in the PS pension to the tune of over 108 billion by 2008.

    It would be more correct to suggest that the landlord has been subsidising their rent since they have lived there, and has been forced to reduce that subsidy but they are still paying less that the market rate for that flat.

    http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018283.shtml
    http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf


  • #317
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    Welease wrote: »
    Its never quiet as simple as that..
    Yes, it has been a direct pay cut to to PS staff.. and any sector is going to feel a cut of that size in their take home pay..

    But, the PS does not, and did not adequately fund their pensions.. There is a massive defecit in the PS pension to the tune of over 108 billion by 2008.

    It would be more correct to suggest that the landlord has been subsidising their rent since they have lived there, and has been forced to reduce that subsidy but they are still paying less that the market rate for that flat.

    http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018283.shtml
    http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf

    Yes but what you are arguing about is the rights and wrongs of it or its justification.
    I am simply stating that from a public servants point of view it is a cut - more money towards our pensions for no improvement in our final pension. We had a deal and it was amended and not in our favour.


  • #318
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Welease wrote: »
    But, the PS does not, and did not adequately fund their pensions.

    http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018283.shtml
    http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf

    that maybe true for some staff but your average staff member earning say 38k, they over fund their own pension fund and could easily provide the pension they get back in a private pension fund.

    i currently pay 309e towards my PS pension, but if i was to open a private pension, i would more than meet my payments to cover what i may get from the PS at 68.

    http://www.pensionsboard.ie/en/Saving_Calculator/


  • #319
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    sollar wrote: »
    Yes but what you are arguing about is the rights and wrongs of it or its justification.
    I am simply stating that from a public servants point of view it is a cut - more money towards our pensions for no improvement in our final pension. We had a deal and it was amended and not in our favour.

    True, but people in this country have to start being realistic.. you cannot summon money from nowhere to pay these rediculous benefits (and i dont mean just the PS.. the boom).. and not expect to have to pay the costs of those benefits.. this simply put, is why the country is bankrupt.. and it will get worse..

    I don't work for the banks or the PS.. and year on year I get to pay more and more for nothing extra.. in fact I will get less.. why would PS defined benefit pension be any different, especially when even our banks stopped offering them years ago because they cannot be realistically funded?


  • #320
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    kceire wrote: »
    that maybe true for some staff but your average staff member earning say 38k, they over fund their own pension fund and could easily provide the pension they get back in a private pension fund.

    i currently pay 309e towards my PS pension, but if i was to open a private pension, i would more than meet my payments to cover what i may get from the PS at 68.

    http://www.pensionsboard.ie/en/Saving_Calculator/

    It's more than some staff.. the auditor general themselves has concluded that "based on the cost of one year’s additional service, that the pension provision for an average public servant will cost around 9% of pay after account is taken of contributions made and the pension related deduction. The gross cost is an average 20% of pay. There are wide variations by sector as full pensions can be earned over a relatively shorter working life in certain sectors."

    If the pension fund was overfunded.. then there would not be a defecit of 108 billion using the current pay as you go scheme..

    Regarding your personal details.. paying 309 Euro without more details is difficult to ascertain what/if you would like have in a pension pot.. especially as pension costs are spiraling..


  • #321
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    Recently I had a girl I know turn around and argue with me that she believes she is poorly paid, that her terms and conditions are "under attack" by the Irish government, that the Irish government are trying to make her homeless and attach her to penury, that she is constantly broke and struggling to get from one week to another...

    It then emerged that she is a paramedic who is paid just under 1,200 Euro a week in gross pay. Rounding her weekly gross income off at 1,100 Euro a week, her ball park yearly salary is 57,200 Euro a year.

    I'm wondering how on earth someone on this kind of money can ever delude themselves that they are poorly paid or that they are being held to penury by the state.

    Another thread on here mentions entrant teachers on 37,000 a year who claim they are living on the poverty line, that's 711 Euro before deductions a week, for what is really half a years actual work.

    Is it not time that we created a special FAS course for these kind of people so that we might be able to gently educate them that they are highly paid, very well looked after and should really be grateful for having jobs for life on upward only pay increments (during normal economic times, which I accept that we are not currently living in)... I think if you have the audacity to say that you are living in poverty while you are being paid 711 or 1,100 Euro a week gross, it really is time for you to be put on a compulsory course to teach you the fundamentals of financial planning and to teach you some respect for the actual value of the money you are being paid by the state...


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    sollar wrote: »
    Its not, its a cut and every government minister i've heard on the airwaves has called it so. The ps pensions were agreed for years and people paid into them. Then the government come in and demand more money from public servants to go towards their pensions. They do not get anything additional in return.

    Its like your landlord putting up your rent, its still the same flat but now your paying more for it. But no its not a rent rise..... its a contribution to your overly splendid flat dear boy.

    If you can't see that the pension levy is a net loss for the public servants then i despair.

    It is not a cut, it is the government of the time finally waking up to how massively underfunded the PS scheme is and charging you more towards your retirement upkeep.
    kceire wrote: »
    that maybe true for some staff but your average staff member earning say 38k, they over fund their own pension fund and could easily provide the pension they get back in a private pension fund.

    i currently pay 309e towards my PS pension, but if i was to open a private pension, i would more than meet my payments to cover what i may get from the PS at 68.

    http://www.pensionsboard.ie/en/Saving_Calculator/

    I'm really getting tired of you spouting off about things that you have no idea about.

    If you had any idea of pensions you would never consider a private pension over a PS one if the same amount were to be contributed to both.

    If you do not believe me, go to a reputable, independent, financial advisor, pay them, and get my post here confirmed.


  • #323
    tenchi-fan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,339 ✭✭✭tenchi-fan


    I agree. Many people are delusional.

    Fact is, if your pay allows you to achieve a good work-life balance and afford a nutritious diet, a nice house, obtain good health-care, can provide for your family, can run a car if necessary and have some discretionary income left over, you are not being paid poorly.

    Some people may sacrifice their work-life balance through overtime or antisocial hours for the reward of more pay. Many sacrifice several years pay by going to college with the expectation of a higher reward and therefore should receive a premium on their pay when compared to someone who did not attend college.

    In general any wage over €35,000 in Dublin city centre or over €28,000 outside of Dublin is not a poor wage by any means. Minimum wage is a poor wage, as is any wage similar to the income of benefits recipients when human effort and costs associated with work (travel, clothing and lunches) are taken into account.


  • #324
    dan_d
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭dan_d


    Wholly and completely agree. Recent interview with a semi state body.I mentioned i was earning 40k in my previous job and would be only too delighted to get that again, given the industry I'm in.The HR person commented that was quite low for someone like me (5 yrs experience).If I was to join them as a grad what would I expect?? I said approx 27 (I've no idea).She said don't be so ridiculous,that's far too low.
    Compare to another interview I had with a private company.When I told them my prev salary, they said...that's nice, but we've all taken up to 30per cent paycuts, and this is a grad position, so we won't be paying anywhere near that.I said that's fine...I'm reckoning they'll be paying between 25 and 27k
    Absolutely amazed at the 2 different attitudes. I jist want to be able to work and pay my bills with a small bit extra, and after that I don't care what I earn.But I could not believe the comparison.There a large number of people still living in fairy land and unfortunately many are located in the public sector...and the financial industries, to an extent.


  • #325
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    I always find this provokes a more sober assessment of wages and income.


  • #326
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,551 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    €57,00 per annum isn't a poor wage but no dount someone working shifts, weekends etc as a paramedic earns every penny of it. Also she isn't claiming to be living in poverty either so that segment of your post is both unneccessary and misleading.


  • #327
    Noffles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,549 ✭✭✭Noffles


    I'm not on a "poor wage" and neither is my wife... I think what you do with it is my issue... if you use it "poorly" then almost any wage can be a poor wage!


  • #328
    Danbo!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,942 ✭✭✭Danbo!


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    I always find this provokes a more sober assessment of wages and income.

    Excellent link. I signed on recently and I'm in the top 12% earning my 9600 per year. :eek: When I put in the salary from 2 months ago very close to 1%


  • #329
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    If I remember correctly there was a teacher interviewed a couple of years ago who was visibly upset about her salary of 60,000. "How can anyone be expected to live on 60,000?" she wondered. Her upset was not that she felt she was wasn't being given the money she felt she deserved but rather that the salary of 60,000 was an abuse of her or anyone's human rights.

    It was only towards the end of 2008 that, for the first time in decades, some sort of income reduction was first suggested for public sector workers. Looking back, you can see that it wasn't just anger on the faces of those participating in union organised marches, but also shock and disbelief. They thought that once they joined the public service they had a guaranteed income for life with increments and a pension and that this had nothing to do with what was happening in the rest of the country. Many of them for that reason would not have taken any interest in the economic issues facing the country and hence the shock when the changes came.

    It is very different in the private sector where most people take a at least rudimentary interest in economic matters. They need to know where the economy is going so that they can take the correct decisions for themselves concerning their career. This would expose them to a certain extent to relative wage levels: how much are they paid relative to those doing similar jobs in other countries, and how much are they paid relative to the average wage in Ireland.

    Therefore if you are in the private sector and on a wage of 57K, you most likely know that it is a good wage compared to other workers and moreover it is a very good wage by the standards of developed western countries. You know this because to get to this level you have had to make a lot of decisions about your career up to that and have most likely had to personally negotiate that wage. Your salary is not the result of an accumulation of automatic entitlements negotiated by others using the threat of strikes, work to rule or other forms of sabotage.

    If you are in the public sector and on a salary of 57K or above it undermines your position to be even aware that this is a very good wage by Irish (and even more so by World) standards. How could you take part in protest marches or strikes and still face the world if you were fully aware of reality?

    In the private sector on the other hand, entitlement (and therefore the sense of entitlement) tends not to enter in to the equation. You have that salary on the basis that your employer would rather you have it than have you leave for some other position.

    I think this is the reason these public/private threads don't tend to resolve themselves here on boards. Those who work in the private sector simply don't think in terms of entitlements, increments, grievances and so on and protesting until they get what they feel they should have.


  • #330
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,328 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    I agree with the OP.
    There are a lot of people out there who have absolutely no concept of what poor pay and conditions are.
    I generally find (obviously anecdotal) that these people have been pretty smart with their career/education choices and ended up almost straight away in a decent job with good pay and conditions or else ended up in a decent job from a young age. However they usually havent had much experience (for whatever reason) in other jobs/roles where pay and conditions have been dramatically different.
    I have to be honest and say that my father always pushed me towards academia and a decent paying, relatively physically easy job, mainly because I saw what he did for a living and how much he gave up to put food on the table.
    I myself worked in the most basic poorly paid (even at the time in this country) job, with long hours from a young age to finance my own life. Thankfully I moved through a few jobs and am where I am now.
    But' I've had experience.

    I've said this in a few other threads but there's a lot to be said that people experience a few other jobs before they start complaining about their own.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,900 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    It is not a cut, it is the government of the time finally waking up to how massively underfunded the PS scheme is and charging you more towards your retirement upkeep.

    If the Govt were actually doing anything with the levy to ringfence it for pension payments or actually investing it in the NPRF etc I would be more inclined to agree...but there are not...its very hard not to see it simply as a pay cut in disguise
    But, the PS does not, and did not adequately fund their pensions.. There is a massive defecit in the PS pension to the tune of over 108 billion by 2008.

    this has been mentioned before....there is no fund therefore there is no deficit or underfunding issue in the traditional sense what will happen is a rising cost in current spending....the figures are estimated on staff figures and costs at the time...

    however, many changes have taken place to reform the costs

    the levy has been discussed but now pensioners will also a levy on the pension they recieve and there are also changes to the pension scheme itself

    exisiting workers now pay around 14% superannuation (and many pay Class A PRSI - another 9% is it?)

    their salary has been reduced and so their pension will be reduced

    so they will pay 14% for up to 47/48 years towards occupational pension and in some cases 9% for the OAP, where the OAP is available the other pension is reduced by the same amount

    They will also pay another 4% average levy on the pension when they get it


    an example should someone retire on say €50,000 on full service they will get an occupational pension of €13,000 for which they have paid up to 14% for up to 48 years for and the OAP of €12,000

    they will also pay a 4% levy on part of their pension


    Future entrant's salary will be reduced further and the pension is changed to be based on average earnings and they will pay the levy

    I think all thios shows clearly that significant changes have been made that will go towards tackling the costs you have mentioned.


Advertisement