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

fliball123 wrote: »

yet the public sector pension will still be far supperior than anything in the private sector

no it is not

there are some better

So all my road/car tax goes on the road eh yeah come up out of it

no but it goes to the Local Government Fund so at least it is funnelled towards siomething specific

Riskymove wrote: »

see the big picture though

the PS paycut in 2010 would have resulted significantly to the decrease in the income tax take

330,000 people had wages reduced and therefore paid less tax

as would the reduction in PS numbers as pensioners would pay less tax too

come up out of that will you...So your trying to say that this small % are the only ones who got a cut...This so blinkered...

Taxes increased in the the budget at the end of 2009 When did the pay cut for the p.s come in..was it mid 2010 it would not nearly come anywhere near to what your saying ...Your sums do not add up..It quite clearly reflects not only the moderate pay cut of the p.s but also tha slashings of both wages and jobs in the private sector...

deanswift wrote: »

agreed!!

michael noonan this morning hinted that on taking office FG will impose a further paycut on the public service in JULY 2011 at the behest of the IMF of course

have you a link for this..be interested to hear what he said...Why are you agreeing here

fliball123 wrote: »

No it doesnt it goes into a pot of money for the gov to pay the bills overall...

no it goes to the local government fund!!

Some private pensions are better only because people pay more

thats not true either, schemes in the banks and insurance companies for example

or where the company gives a little 'boost' to the retiring directors pot!!

fliball123 wrote: »

it hit both public and private...and yet the public sector pension will still be far supperior than anything in the private sector

You seem to be ignorant of the facts:

Public Servants who were employed before 1995 are generally not entitled to the PRSI Contributory Old Age Pension and only receive a maximum pension of 50% of their pensionable salary.

Public Servants who were employed after 1995 are entitled to the PRSI Contributory Old Age Pension and only receive a pension top-up to bring their overall pension receipts to 50% of their pensionable salary.

Most Private Sector Pensioners receive the PRSI Contributory Old Age pension. In addition, they often receive an occupational pension which is equivalent to 66% of their pensionable salary.

Changes continue to be made to Public Sector pensions to reduce the overall cost to the Exchequer to the extent that Public Servants will in future pay most of the cost of their own pensions while in industry employers often pay up to 50% of the contributions towards employee pensions.

But I suppose Benchmarking 3 will address these issues as they become clearer...

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

You seem to be ignorant of the facts:

Public Servants who were employed before 1995 are generally not entitled to the PRSI Contributory Old Age Pension and only receive a maximum pension of 50% of their pensionable salary.

Public Servants who were employed after 1995 are entitled to the PRSI Contributory Old Age Pension and only receive a pension top-up to bring their overall pension receipts to 50% of their pensionable salary.

Most Private Sector Pensioners receive the PRSI Contributory Old Age pension. In addition, they often receive an occupational pension which is equivalent to 66% of their pensionable salary.

Changes continue to be made to Public Sector pensions to reduce the overall cost to the Exchequer to the extent that Public Servants will in future pay most of the cost of their own pensions while in industry employers often pay up to 50% of the contributions towards employee pensions.

But I suppose Benchmarking 3 will address these issues as they become clearer...

And quite rightly they should pay for their own pension...Thats all I ask...Why should I the tax payer pay for Public sevants pensions when I cannot afford one myself??

Riskymove wrote: »

no it goes to the local government fund!!



thats not true either, schemes in the banks and insurance companies for example

or where the company gives a little 'boost' to the retiring directors pot!!

Can you show me evidence of this going into a local gov fund???

kceire wrote: »

fliball123 wrote: »

can you do your own research to back up your own claims......no?
the Local Government Fund is to provide local authorities with funds to run their allocated areas.

Fair enough well then I will assume I am right that taxes come into the gov and there is no end to end exposure of where my car tax goes...it could for all you or I know go to pay the bankers or p.s pension...

Anyway if what a previous poster said about Noonan stating that the IMF have requested P.S pay to be cut in 2011 I will no longer need to defend myself as everyone in Europe bar the 300k P.S workers and those afiiliated have seen how overpaid you guys are

Well if the IMF do cut P.S wages this year it will definately show that P.S is overpaid..Simple no point argueing about it anymore lets see what happens...definately voting F.G

ardmacha wrote: »

GNP (more than GDP) is a measure of the ability of the economy to support public services. The Public finances should reflect the GNP.

No it isn't, taxation revenue is.

For the love of god.. you were wrong on the GDP link to public sector wages okay? Using GDP (or GNP) as a yardstick for the Public Sector whilst ignoring taxation would be like trying to cut a loaf of bread with a hammer whilst ignoring the bread knife.

ardmacha wrote: »

I stated that PS wages did not rise more than private sector wages in the boom. You reply with the irrelevant information that PS wages were 30% higher. Precisely the type of ignoring the point that characterises this debate.

It is far from irrelevant as you well know.

ardmacha wrote: »

People should get about the same reumeration in whatever sector they work, or do you not agree with this? There is no advantage to society to have all the talented people leave the public sector for better paid private sector ones.

That would be communism - the primary reason we had (have) to cut the wages in the PS was (is) because of dwindling tax revenues (a point you continously ignore). The fact the wages are unfair and out of proportion with the private sector is actually probably more secondary.

I'll bite my lip on the merits of having the public sector better paid than the private sector when unemployments in the country is near 14% and the exchequer deficit is €18.75bn.

Riskymove wrote: »

the IMF will want the deficit closed and so some expenditure reduced, it will have little to do with being overpaid or not

the IMF have agreed the 4 year plan, if it is not being met they will want other things done

yeah but as outlined before on this all other areas of gov spend came down in this budget with the exception of P.S ...F.G have said they will cut P.S pay..

Who will be the biggest party in the next Election??

Dame Enda has his scissors for a cut in p.s pay.. I reckon he may leave it till the december budget but it will depend on how things are going. I believe the gov have to report in every week to the IMF with there balance sheet of income vs expenditure and as more and more tax payers leave this country and they are is its getting increasingly worse to live here and every 3 months there is a major review...

So are you saying that if in 3 months time when income tax is lower than expected even after the tax increases and the deficit is futher due to less tax and having to repay the billions in loans and interest that they will increase tax even more.

I have pointed out on numerous threads we are at the point of diminishing returns with tax...Now people may say we are not a high tax country ...But we are in reality with stealth and other taxes we are paying through the cohonies...

My point being that out of the gov spending 3 out of 4 areas have come down in the last budget and unless it is proven that the cpa has saved billions and billions (Seriously doubt this) I reckon there will be a 10% cut accross the board now thats just my opinion...but based on the all the elements at play thats how I see it.

I am not trying to get at P.S people here I would rather simple see them take a pay cut and my tax not increasing as much and as stated if I was in the p.s I would be fighting tooth and nail to keep my wage

I'm voting FG in the next election, when did Noonan state that the IMF would order public sector pay to be cut in 2011?

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

Most Private Sector Pensioners receive the PRSI Contributory Old Age pension. In addition, they often receive an occupational pension which is equivalent to 66% of their pensionable salary.

It's important to note that...

Many private sector workers have no pensions at all besides the hope of the contributory pension in the future.

For those that do have a private pension, the 66% is an idealistic dream promoted by the pension industry. Few can afford to put in sufficient funds for sufficient time to get close to this. I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that assumes a minimum contribution of 20% of salary over 40+ years. Most likely it would require increasing pension contributions as age limits allow. Also the new reductions in tax reliefs are going to seriously affect higher paid contributors (though one can argue that perhaps there's a sense of justice in that).

One thing I am a bit puzzled by was the Indo article a few pages back that claimed a PS worker would be worse off due to the pension relief changes than a private sector worker. Is that article misleading? I do understand why the PS worker will have to contribute more to get the same pension, but surely the private sector worker would have to do the same? Is the article suggesting that the private guy might choose not to increase contributions, and hence not get the same pension. In which case it's not quite fair to compare them in this way? Maybe I'm missing something?

Ix.

fliball123 wrote: »

I think he was hinting at it on this morning Ireland according to one of the posters here...as I say only a blind man cant see how overpaid the p.s are and it was only a matter of time before the IMF pointed this out

Cut away and between the budget cuts that have to kick in yet and another 300k workers taking a pay cut this is the link that another 100k private sector worker will need www.welfare.ie/

fliball123 wrote: »

Which article - so public sector pay has been cut by what %?

where the hell have you being????????????????
It has being cut by an average of 14%
The budget change have also cut the take home pay of all worker by 5%
are you back from mars yet????