Martin to resign teaching position

littlehedgehog · 22-02-2011 09:43PM

Lumen, you said it.

Rainbow Trout - as clearly, and perfectly as you have explained everything, I think you're fighting a losing battle. Thanks for taking the time to try.

Look - Yes, obviously, the TDs taking massive multiple pensions and gratuities is completely and utterly crazy. But 99% of the public service are on average ages, with a nice pension/gratuity, which they've paid a huge chunk of their their salary towards for their whole working life. They have taken pay cuts (and, on top of those cuts, every single person starting into the PS is starting off on 10% less now), and there has been a hiring freeze (which is the equivalent of redundancies). There will also probably be redundancies once new government comes in. If jobs in the public service are so amazing, then why isn't everyone in one?

Seriously, this is giving out that someone has something you don't, but COULD have - it's not unattainable like?! If a safe pension was so very important, then why didn't you get a job in the public service?

Freddie59 · 22-02-2011 09:57PM

Jean wrote: »

Seriously, this is giving out that someone has something you don't, but COULD have - it's not unattainable like?! If a safe pension was so very important, then why didn't you get a job in the public service?

No. This is asking for a cold hard look to be had at the country's finances. The country is insolvent. And yet antiquated nod and wink deals are being honoured - with borrowed money. Something has to give. Hopefully it will be the ridiculously bloated Public Sector pensions.

FlutterinBantam · 23-02-2011 09:20AM

Jean wrote: »

Lumen, you said it.

Rainbow Trout - as clearly, and perfectly as you have explained everything, I think you're fighting a losing battle. Thanks for taking the time to try.

Look - Yes, obviously, the TDs taking massive multiple pensions and gratuities is completely and utterly crazy. But 99% of the public service are on average ages, with a nice pension/gratuity, which they've paid a huge chunk of their their salary towards for their whole working life. They have taken pay cuts (and, on top of those cuts, every single person starting into the PS is starting off on 10% less now), and there has been a hiring freeze (which is the equivalent of redundancies). There will also probably be redundancies once new government comes in. If jobs in the public service are so amazing, then why isn't everyone in one?

Seriously, this is giving out that someone has something you don't, but COULD have - it's not unattainable like?! If a safe pension was so very important, then why didn't you get a job in the public service?

If you don't mind me saying so, that is not the issue.

I don't begrudge anyone having anything, provided they pay for it themselves.

What we have here is the people who make the rules ensuring that they ride the taxpayer ragged,and even in these straitened times with a huge gap between income and expenditure there are no compulsory redundancies.

The people who pay the piper are entitled to call the tune.

It's nothing about begrudgery.

Lumen · 23-02-2011 10:15AM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I payz yore wages!

Adjusted for terseness.

23-02-2011 11:08AM

A defined benefit scheme is one thing, but the cost of defined benefit schemes in the last few years is gone off the wall. These include DB schemes with no increases on pensions after retirement. To have index linked pensions costs even more of a fortune.
Now that's all well and good, but considering how badly the country is doing, this is something that needs to be looked at, just as it's been looked at for any private DB schemes.
At the very least any increases should be abolished.

As for contributions, they do contribute but what they contribute does not begin to cover even half the cost of the pension, especially taking into account increased longevity.

MagicSean · 23-02-2011 11:18AM

Just looking at my paycheque for last week. I pay 16% in pension deductions and prsi alone. Does that not cover a large portion of my pension? It's not exactly a free perk.

23-02-2011 11:24AM

k_mac wrote: »

Just looking at my paycheque for last week. I pay 16% in pension deductions and prsi alone. Does that not cover a large portion of my pension? It's not exactly a free perk.

let's see
rough annuity cost for someone aged 65 now on a 20k pension with 2% escalation and 50% spouses death in retirement pension (do PS get a spouses' pension?), €490,000
Are you going to pay 490k over your working lifetime?

Assuming you are on 40k and paying 16% in contributions (which I don't think you are as PRSI covers other stuff) for 40 years, earning the 20k pension, that's 256,000
So roughly half, if you were paying a full 16%
Except you wouldn't be starting off on 40k at the start of your career. The pension is based on your final salary regardless of contributions
- more like 20-25k starting salary and working your way up, right? So let's average that out at half of the 256k which is 128k. That's maybe a quarter of the annuity cost.

Not to mention you'll probably be living even longer and annuity rates will have been adapted by then

edit:these are very rough indicative figures, they are not to be relied upon or guaranteed or anything else. if you want genuine pensions advice & quotes please speak to someone in a professional capacity. don't run around quoting these or reproducing them. don't use them for advice or guidance.

MagicSean · 23-02-2011 11:30AM

bluewolf wrote: »

let's see
rough annuity cost for someone aged 65 now on a 20k pension with 2% escalation and 50% spouses death in retirement pension (do PS get a spouses' pension?), €490,000
Are you going to pay 490k over your working lifetime?

Assuming you are on 40k and paying 16% in contributions (which I don't think you are as PRSI covers other stuff) for 40 years, earning the 20k pension, that's 256,000
So roughly half, if you were paying a full 16%

Not to mention you'll probably be living even longer and annuity rates will have been adapted by then

Where exactly are you getting the 490k from

23-02-2011 11:36AM

k_mac wrote: »

Where exactly are you getting the 490k from

Ehm I'm not sure the system has public access so I better not give too much away
it's a rough quote

Though from simple rationale you can see that if you are to be paid 20k for 20 years or so, it comes in at 400k, and the escalation + spouses' + commission will add the rest

MagicSean · 23-02-2011 12:06PM

First of all, prsi doesn't seem to contribute to anything other than my pension so I think it's fair to say it all goes to my pension. I'll assume an average of 40k as that is more accurate. I pay less for the years leading up to it and a little more for the remainder. That gives a pretty conservative estimate of 220k. Considering no male in my family has lived past the age of 65 it's safe to say I won't be drawing it for longer than ten years. If my contributions are invested correctly I think it shoul be close to breaking even. Although maybe I'm oversimplifying it.

23-02-2011 12:17PM

k_mac wrote: »

First of all, prsi doesn't seem to contribute to anything other than my pension so I think it's fair to say it all goes to my pension. I'll assume an average of 40k as that is more accurate. I pay less for the years leading up to it and a little more for the remainder. That gives a pretty conservative estimate of 220k. Considering no male in my family has lived past the age of 65 it's safe to say I won't be drawing it for longer than ten years. If my contributions are invested correctly I think it shoul be close to breaking even. Although maybe I'm oversimplifying it.

I don't know if PS annuities are bought out or paid from the fund or if it's optional. If it's paid directly then yeah they may end up benefitting from not having pay you out longer. But some people live longer and some don't so 20 years is an ok average.
But you can see that it costs a lot more on average than your contributions.
You should speak to an actual broker to find out just for comparison.

The joys of DB schemes!

MagicSean · 23-02-2011 12:56PM

All my allowances and overtime are also subject to pension and prsi payments, and at a higher rate, but they do not change my pension payments so if they are included in my total contributions it looks even more likely to break even.

23-02-2011 01:04PM

It won't even come close to breaking even.

Freddie59 · 24-02-2011 10:46AM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

If you don't mind me saying so, that is not the issue.

I don't begrudge anyone having anything, provided they pay for it themselves.

What we have here is the people who make the rules ensuring that they ride the taxpayer ragged,and even in these straitened times with a huge gap between income and expenditure there are no compulsory redundancies.

The people who pay the piper are entitled to call the tune.

It's nothing about begrudgery.

Precisely. But we're forever ignored.

Martin to resign teaching position

Comments