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

macannrb · 17-01-2011 01:29PM

i took this from another forum but i think its very adpt for this argument;

Among the people who understand money (even a little) and how bust we are (even a little) they are good ideas. Few others realise the scale of radicalism that is required.

ardmacha · 17-01-2011 06:09PM

I suggest you and Kceire actually go an educate yourselves on PS pensions.. It's apparent neither of you actually have a clue about what you are posting about..

Welease, if you disagree with an argument that I have made then you have the opportunity to refute it, for instance you can point out where my postings are not accurate account of the position re PS pensions. However, just because you are having problems doing this does not make it acceptable to resort to abuse.

macannrb · 17-01-2011 06:24PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Welease, if you disagree with an argument that I have made then you have the opportunity to refute it, for instance you can point out where my postings are not accurate account of the position re PS pensions. However, just because you are having problems doing this does not make it acceptable to resort to abuse.

you have been pointed out before that you have been completely wrong about pensions on this thread

Welease · 17-01-2011 06:34PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Welease, if you disagree with an argument that I have made then you have the opportunity to refute it, for instance you can point out where my postings are not accurate account of the position re PS pensions. However, just because you are having problems doing this does not make it acceptable to resort to abuse.

You haven't made an arguement, you posted an uninformed opinion backed up with 0 facts..

ardmacha wrote: »

There isn't a "current" pension liability of €108 billion. These pensions are payable up to 50 years in the future and can be paid from the economy of the future.

ardmacha wrote: »

But all of this talk of imaginary funds with imaginary deficits is just timewasting nonsense.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancen..._1018283.shtml
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/v...v_Pensions.pdf

I have refuted your posts already with reports from the Auditor General and other information from sites such as Finfacts, which have shown you are incorrect on all counts. Other posters have also corrected you.

Kceire willingly chooses to post misleading facts about their pensions (on multiple threds). and also has been called out on this..

So, once again.. I suggest you do go an educate yourself on the facts before continuing to post misleading and incorrect information. This is not the first time the correct information has been presented to you.

ardmacha · 17-01-2011 07:06PM

I stated that the pension liability of €108 billion is payable up to 50 years in the future and can be paid from the economy of the future.

This is not a statement of opinion, this is simple fact.

Please identify what is misleading or uninformed about this statement

(and I accept that Comptrollers report actually states that the liabilities actually fall over 60 years, not 50)

macannrb · 17-01-2011 07:32PM

ardmacha wrote: »

I stated that the pension liability of €108 billion is payable up to 50 years in the future and can be paid from the economy of the future.

This is not a statement of opinion, this is simple fact.

Please identify what is misleading or uninformed about this statement

Did you not understand my reply at the time?

Also an economic activity is very hard to predict 5-10 years into the future so anything past this would be opinion, particularily as the general population is aging, etc. so it would be opinion in my view to regard the economy in 50 years time to have the ability to pay for generous DB pensions of the PS to be an opinion not fact

Welease · 17-01-2011 07:32PM

ardmacha wrote: »

I stated that the pension liability of €108 billion is payable up to 50 years in the future and can be paid from the economy of the future.

This is not a statement of opinion, this is simple fact.

Please identify what is misleading or uninformed about this statement

(and I accept that Comptrollers report actually states that the liabilities actually fall over 60 years, not 50)

Really? Funny.. when I go back and quote you appears you said something different..

ardmacha wrote: »

There isn't a "current" pension liability of €108 billion. These pensions are payable up to 50 years in the future and can be paid from the economy of the future.

ardmacha wrote: »

But all of this talk of imaginary funds with imaginary deficits is just timewasting nonsense.

It appears you have said no pension liability exists.. and it's an imaginary defecit..which doesn't tally with the opinion of anyone who has bothered to educate themselves on some of the facts..

"The Comptroller and Auditor General, John Buckley, said in a report published on Thursday that the State’s accrued liability in respect of public pensions for serving staff and pensioners was estimated at €108 billion at December 31, 2008"

"The pension payments to discharge the current liabilities will be spread over the next 60 years or more. "

There are current liabilities of over 108billion for PS pensions.. it's a fact.. You continue to post misleading information...

ardmacha · 17-01-2011 07:43PM

It appears you have said no pension liability exists.

It may so "appear" to someone determined to misinterpret my statements to suit their own argument.

Of course a pension liability exists and as this arises over a 60 year period (although I said 50 year). The term "current liabilities" or "current liability" does not appear in the C&AGs report. It may have appeared in the finfacts webpage, but they were merely commenting on the report and my commentary is as valid as theirs.

Welease · 17-01-2011 07:44PM

ardmacha wrote: »

It may so "appear" to someone determined to misinterpret my statements to suit their own argument.

Of course a pension liability exists and as this arises over a 60 year period (although I said 50 year). The term "current liabilities" or "current liability" does not appear in the C&AGs report. It may have appeared in the finfacts webpage, but they were merely commenting on the report and my commentary is as valid as theirs.

misinterpret imaginary defecit? is there another interpretation?

A current liability.. is a liability that exists now.. there exists a liabilty now of 108 billion euro... How much clearer does it need to be?

ardmacha · 17-01-2011 08:02PM

misinterpret imaginary defecit? is there another interpretation?

The deficit does not exist at this point in time. It is a deficit in possible future cash flows compared to future outlays.

The presentation of your argument was to talk about the PS pensions as if they were a private pension scheme with a fund. They are not.

Welease · 17-01-2011 08:10PM

ardmacha wrote: »

The deficit does not exist at this point in time. It is a deficit in possible future cash flows compared to future outlays.

The presentation of your argument was to talk about the PS pensions as if they were a private pension scheme with a fund. They are not.

You said it's an "imaginary defecit".. stop backtracking on what you posted..

Liability exists TODAY for the pensions accrued by current serving PS staff.. there is little money in the pot to pay for those pensions, and the projected rate of payments into the pay-as-you-go pot leaves a shortfall of 108 billion..

Far from the no current liability, and imaginary defecit you tried to claim..

macannrb · 17-01-2011 08:52PM

ardmacha wrote: »

The deficit does not exist at this point in time. It is a deficit in possible future cash flows compared to future outlays.

This is incorrect. The liability does exists at this point in time. The strictly speaking it is not a deficit (the 108bn) at all, but it certainly does exist!

ardmacha · 17-01-2011 08:56PM

Far from the no current liability, and imaginary defecit you tried to claim..

I have never claimed that there was no liability, only that that this liability is continuous over a long period in future.

The liability does exists at this point in time. The strictly speaking it is not a deficit (the 108bn) at all,

I agree, the liability certainly exists at this point in time. Strictly speaking there is no deficit.

avoidspammers · 19-01-2011 05:09PM

Welease wrote: »

Yes... and have done so numerous times.

In this thread, I have linked to the auditor general reports which show a colossal defecit.. I have also linked to Finfacts graph which shows that extended out to 2050.. Its is not a potential liability, it is a current liability.. as all report show.. they also show that the current funding levels are inadequate, so the defecit continues to grow out to 2050..

In regards to Kciere.. They refuse to respond to the question of which salary they used in their calculation... They continue to avoid the question while responding to others, so i think it's fair to conclude that they know their figures are wrong, but lack the decency to admit so..

Before someone starts the usual PS begrudger bit.. also notice I commented on Head The Wall's figures where I felt that the PSRI contributions should be counted in favour of PS employees, as that was missing from his numbers..

Where might one obtain a copy of your organisations guide to progressing your agenda online?ISME? IBEC?

noodler · 19-01-2011 05:15PM

avoidspammers wrote: »

Where might one obtain a copy of your organisations guide to progressing your agenda online?ISME? IBEC?

Ah baseless accusations - the last refuge of the defeated debater.

P. Breathnach · 19-01-2011 05:56PM

noodler wrote: »

Ah baseless accusations - the last refuge of the defeated debater.

Right up there with claiming victory.

fliball123 · 20-01-2011 01:16PM

RichardAnd wrote: »

Whilst this is a good point, I would just point out that PS worker on a pension will be getting less than he/she was in his PS job. So 10 retired civil servants ARE costing the state less than 10 active civil servants.

But the issue of pensions not adding up isn't a uniquely Irish issue. Rather, a pension crisis is a looming prospect for many nations across the world. People these days live too long compared to their working life and, eventually, this elephant in the room will have to be tackled.

Plus the cost of their replacements and said replacements pension...

RobbieTheRobber · 20-01-2011 02:12PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Plus the cost of their replacements and said replacements pension...

There is still a moratorium on staff recruitment in the civil service and while some post are being fileld under exemptions in the main most positions of retirees are not being filled.
This obviously increases the workload of those remaining.

RichardAnd · 20-01-2011 02:22PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Plus the cost of their replacements and said replacements pension...

At the moment, those people aren't being replaced.

The logic behind pensions is that there those will working pay the pensions of those retired and when the current workers themselves retire, the retirees they were supporting have passed on. Unfortunately, this system is rapidly breaking down for the following reasons.

People are retiring too early:
People are living too long.
Not enough younger people are getting into work to pay for the elderly.

Remember, in the olden days, the average male civil servant drew his pension for five years before dropping dead whilst still in his 60s. This was natural back then but now, we're able to keep people alive far longer. My Grand-father retired from the civil service in 1986 and only passed away this summer which means he drew his pension for 24 years, more than half of the total amount of time he spent in the service of the public.

Like wise, many of my other retired relatives were civil servants (need I point out I come from a civil service family

) are well into their second decade of retirement and still standing.

But let's not associate this with the PS only. The state pension, whilst less than the PS pension, is still costing us money and whilst the elderly should always receive a pension, the problem is that the model of the young supporting the old isn't scaling well. For anyone here in their 20's, it is very possible that we will never see a state pension so be prepared.

fliball123 · 20-01-2011 02:28PM

RichardAnd wrote: »

At the moment, those people aren't being replaced.

The logic behind pensions is that there those will working pay the pensions of those retired and when the current workers themselves retire, the retirees they were supporting have passed on. Unfortunately, this system is rapidly breaking down for the following reasons.

People are retiring too early:

People are living too long.

Not enough younger people are getting into work to pay for the elderly.

Remember, in the olden days, the average male civil servant drew his pension for five years before dropping dead whilst still in his 60s. This was natural back then but now, we're able to keep people alive far longer. My Grand-father retired from the civil service in 1986 and only passed away this summer which means he drew his pension for 24 years, more than half of the total amount of time he spent in the service of the public.

Like wise, many of my other retired relatives were civil servants (need I point out I come from a civil service family ) are well into their second decade of retirement and still standing.

But let's not associate this with the PS only. The state pension, whilst less than the PS pension, is still costing us money and whilst the elderly should always receive a pension, the problem is that the model of the young supporting the old isn't scaling well. For anyone here in their 20's, it is very possible that we will never see a state pension so be prepared.

Well then the argument that the ps is effecient is redundant or I make my point someone has to do their work or else they were not needed and now have a nice pension or someone will be doing their work via O.T which is at a premium rate and an increase in pension contributions...

RobbieTheRobber · 20-01-2011 03:29PM

RichardAnd wrote: »

Remember, in the olden days, the average male civil servant drew his pension for five years before dropping dead whilst still in his 60s. This was natural back then but now, we're able to keep people alive far longer. My Grand-father retired from the civil service in 1986 and only passed away this summer which means he drew his pension for 24 years, more than half of the total amount of time he spent in the service of the public.

.

Richard whilst this is a wonderful story about the longevity of your family.
The average man dies at 77.86* years of age so is very unlikely to draw his pension for 24 years in fact much closer to half of that number.
To get a full pension in the civil service you must serve 40 years so again its very unlikely that a CS member would be drawing his pension for more than half the time he was employed by the state.

I will agree pensiosn are an issue but we must not argue from isolated incidents we must use the average age of those who die.

*cia factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html

RobbieTheRobber · 20-01-2011 03:31PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Well then the argument that the ps is effecient is redundant or I make my point someone has to do their work or else they were not needed and now have a nice pension or someone will be doing their work via O.T which is at a premium rate and an increase in pension contributions...

Fliball can you restate this i havent a notion what your saying!

fliball123 · 20-01-2011 03:40PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

There is still a moratorium on staff recruitment in the civil service and while some post are being fileld under exemptions in the main most positions of retirees are not being filled.
This obviously increases the workload of those remaining.

What I am saying Robbie that even with people retiring and a moratorium we will either have to pay existing members overtime to do the jobs of those leaving or else there job was redundant - highlighting the inefficiencies..You we were arguing the cost of replacing the people retiring. I was responding to Richardand who said it is better to have people on a retired rate (which is less) but he conveniently left out the cost or someone picking up this person's workload...As I was pointing out before any ps got in..Its either one or the other..

Either someone will be paid O.T at a higher rate or the job is not getting done and there for unessential and therefore a waiste of money?

Does this clarify it for you

RobbieTheRobber · 20-01-2011 03:50PM

fliball123 wrote: »

What I am saying Robbie that even with people retiring and a moratorium we will either have to pay existing members overtime to do the jobs of those leaving or else there job was redundant - highlighting the inefficiencies..You we were arguing the cost of replacing the people retiring. I was responding to Richardand who said it is better to have people on a retired rate (which is less) but he conveniently left out the cost or someone picking up this person's workload...As I was pointing out before any ps got in..Its either one or the other..

Either someone will be paid O.T at a higher rate or the job is not getting done and there for unessential and therefore a waiste of money?

Does this clarify it for you

At the momment that work is being picked up those left behind.
A reduction in the number of departments would also allow for servants currently serving in those to be relocated to other departments to take up work. (As was accepted under the CPA)

Remember it was not PS that sanctioned the creation of the units/sections and departments that now make up the body of government offices, it was elected government ministers who authorised them.
It was a government led iniative that created the de-centralisation also, this was not the PS in isolation running the state.

fliball123 · 20-01-2011 03:56PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

At the momment that work is being picked up those left behind.
A reduction in the number of departments would also allow for servants currently serving in those to be relocated to other departments to take up work. (As was accepted under the CPA)

Remember it was not PS that sanctioned the creation of the units/sections and departments that now make up the body of government offices, it was elected government ministers who authorised them.
It was a government led iniative that created the de-centralisation also, this was not the PS in isolation running the state.

Ok so your telling me that the Unions and PS wouldnot kick up a stink if they are doing more than they are supposed to.

You cannot have it both ways either people are being paid more via overtime at extra rates to do the job or contractors coming in.

Or

People that are underworked and are now getting the appropriate amount of work for their pay - Showing previous ineffeciencies

Or

The vacancies of the people leaving where not in any way useful and there for a waste of money

Pick your pioson my guess is that its a combination of all

RobbieTheRobber · 20-01-2011 04:34PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Ok so your telling me that the Unions and PS wouldnot kick up a stink if they are doing more than they are supposed to.

You cannot have it both ways either people are being paid more via overtime at extra rates to do the job or contractors coming in.

Or

People that are underworked and are now getting the appropriate amount of work for their pay - Showing previous ineffeciencies

Or

The vacancies of the people leaving where not in any way useful and there for a waste of money

Pick your pioson my guess is that its a combination of all

Or that the certain non core tasks are not getting carried out, which allows those remaining staff to focus on the essentail tasks.
Which is the case in my particular office.

Essentially a reduction in numbers will see a reduction in service is what i am saying fliball.

I believe the union did voice their concerns do you remember the strike days and work to rule!

However under the terms of the CPA which the unions accepted we now have to live with these terms of work.

BrianD3 · 20-01-2011 09:12PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Richard whilst this is a wonderful story about the longevity of your family.
The average man dies at 77.86* years of age so is very unlikely to draw his pension for 24 years in fact much closer to half of that number.
To get a full pension in the civil service you must serve 40 years so again its very unlikely that a CS member would be drawing his pension for more than half the time he was employed by the state.

That figure is life expectancy at birth. At a retirement age of 65, life expectancy of an Irish male would likely be close to 20 years.

Life expectancy table from the US
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

P. Breathnach · 20-01-2011 10:03PM

BrianD3 wrote: »

That figure is life expectancy at birth. At a retirement age of 65, life expectancy of an Irish male would likely be close to 20 years....

You need also to factor in those who do not survive to pension age. Any calculation should be based on life expectancy from date of initial employment.

RichardAnd · 21-01-2011 09:32AM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Richard whilst this is a wonderful story about the longevity of your family.
The average man dies at 77.86* years of age so is very unlikely to draw his pension for 24 years in fact much closer to half of that number.
To get a full pension in the civil service you must serve 40 years so again its very unlikely that a CS member would be drawing his pension for more than half the time he was employed by the state.

I will agree pensiosn are an issue but we must not argue from isolated incidents we must use the average age of those who die.

*cia factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html

My grand father died at 81, having retired slightly early in 1986. However, I don't think his 24 years of getting a pension was all that unusual. Most of the "old guard" in the civil service will be retiring at 60 and a good chunk of them will have 40 years or there abouts service done. Given that it's likely most of these will live to their 80s, that would mean a sizable number of them will be getting a pension for close to 20 years. That was my original point.

RobbieTheRobber · 21-01-2011 11:38AM

RichardAnd wrote: »

My grand father died at 81, having retired slightly early in 1986. However, I don't think his 24 years of getting a pension was all that unusual. Most of the "old guard" in the civil service will be retiring at 60 and a good chunk of them will have 40 years or there abouts service done. Given that it's likely most of these will live to their 80s, that would mean a sizable number of them will be getting a pension for close to 20 years. That was my original point.

Ok john i will give you my personal stats then!

My maternal grandmother died at 66, my maternal grandfather at 51.
My father at 49.

My paternal grandfather at 73 and my paternal grandmother at 71.

See your stats and my stats are irrelevant john but my stats would bring the average well down.

The age of retirement is now 65 and i believe is to be upped to 67 for public servants (i could be wrong).
It is very unlikely i will ever be able to claim half my working life in pension sums upon retirement on a full public service pension. My pension will also be greatly reduced in terms of the payment your Grandfather received.

So from my position it seems you want to punish me becasue your grandfather had a long life!

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

Comments