Slashing Public Sector Pay

sarumite wrote: »

If the pension levy is being included as a contribution to a defined benefit how can it also be a pay cut?

As per previous posts that comes down to what people define as a "pay cut". Some are looking at gross salary (not a pay cut) and some looking at net salary (pay cut).. Some listen to Lenihan (pay cut), and some look at the pension plan (being based on final salary with the pre-levy amount paid out) (not a pay cut).. and in their own minds they are all correct..

Get agreement on the definition of "pay cut" then the discussion might advance

20Cent wrote: »

If your pay check is less then its a pay cut. Simples.

Personally.. I couldn't care less what people call it :eek:

Additionally, if that is the definition, then how come some PS posters believe an increment is NOT a pay rise.. Surely, following the same simple logic an increase in pay check is a pay rise?

sollar wrote: »

Increments are part of the agreed pay structure and are not pay rises. .

Maybe its not so simples?

Interesting to see many who champion the 'private sector' lobbying for 'public-sector' pay to be slashed and reveling in the thought of it.
If we continue along the insane route we are following then this, of course, will happen.
Do people here really think that any savings made by doing this will benifit Ireland's economy in any way, though?
The money that is saved from this will be poured into the black-hole that is our banks, i.e. used to pay off the foreign bankers and gamblers that are, ultimately, culpable for these bad loans. Does anyone really think this has anything to do with 'recapitalising' our banks and getting them lending to small businesses?
If public sector pay is 'slashed', huge amounts of money will be flowing out of an economy already on the brink of collapse; this will finish off many of the small businesses in this country currently just barely hanging on.
Ironically, given the situation we find ourselves in, those who wish to see public-sector pay 'slashed' are inadvertantly cheering for a death-blow to what remains of our private sector.
Our economy is in a death spiral. Of course the public sector needs stream-lining but this has gone way beyond pitting public v private.
Our problems start and end with the banks, NAMA and the preposterous debt that has been foisted upon us by crooks who purport to be giving us a 'bail-out.

gigino wrote: »

Most of the people in the private sector would love a pay cut if it guaranteed them a golden pension. Hell, almost 500,000 would love a job / income, never mind a golden pension to look forward to.
Re public service pensions, What other ( bankrupt, I dare say ) country would the average retiring public servant - in addition to their annual pension - a cash tax free amount equivalent to the guts of a couple of nice new apartments, built to government specifications in scenic areas, as a tip ? http://www.daft.ie/searchnew_development.daft?id=12590

Please stop 500000 are not looking for work, a lot of these were unemployed when we had full employment

The tax free sum is due to years of public service to society, something a private sector worker is incapable of doing

Head The Wall wrote: »

You're wrong about that, the last ESRI report showed the greatest difference at the lowest paid end. It was around 35% at the bottom and 8-10% at the top end.

These so called lower paid paper shufflers are also the ones first in line to get their pay reinstated as per the CPA when they should be getting cut the most to bring them in line with their private sector counterparts

Oh yeah it must be right so....if the ESRI say so...
Who pays them again????? EXACTLY..of course they are going to say that it suits the government

gigino wrote: »

Most of the people in the private sector would love a pay cut if it guaranteed them a golden pension. Hell, almost 500,000 would love a job / income, never mind a golden pension to look forward to.
Re public service pensions, What other ( bankrupt, I dare say ) country would the average retiring public servant - in addition to their annual pension - a cash tax free amount equivalent to the guts of a couple of nice new apartments, built to government specifications in scenic areas, as a tip ? http://www.daft.ie/searchnew_development.daft?id=12590

Was that the cheapest you could find...
if you converted the pension to mars bars ...how many!!!
See stupid argument!!

gigino wrote: »

... The current situation where the average retiring public servant gets a tax free gratuity of 18 months finishing salary - big enough to buy the guts of a couple of new apartments in parts of the country ( you can see them on daft.ie for 40k ) , in addition to our pension, is not sustainable considering the state of the economy / the IMF here etc. Prices have fallem , public service pensions need to too.

gigino wrote: »

... The current situation where the average retiring public servant gets a tax free gratuity of 18 months finishing salary - big enough to buy the guts of a couple of new apartments in parts of the country ( you can see them on daft.ie for 40k ) , in addition to our normal public service annual pension, is not moral, decent or sustainable considering the state of the economy / the IMF here etc.

gigino wrote: »

... In addition to their annual pension, the average public servant gets their fax free "gratuity" of 18 months salary, which is enough in these times to buy the guts of not one but two brand new 2-bedroom apartments in some parts of the country....

gigino wrote: »

... What other ( bankrupt, I dare say ) country would give each + every retiring public servant a cash tax free amount equivalent to couple of nice new apartments, built to government specifications in scenic areas, as a tip....in additional to our public service pension.

gigino wrote: »

... What other ( bankrupt, I dare say ) country would give each + every retiring public servant - in addition to their annual pension - a cash tax free amount equivalent to the guts of a couple of nice new apartments, built to government specifications in scenic areas, as a tip ?

gigino wrote: »

... What other ( bankrupt, I dare say ) country would the average retiring public servant - in addition to their annual pension - a cash tax free amount equivalent to the guts of a couple of nice new apartments, built to government specifications in scenic areas, as a tip ? http://www.daft.ie/searchnew_development.daft?id=12590

I get your point about the catastrophic fall in property values, particularly the values of inferior apartments in remote locations.

Now, can you please stop rabbiting on about it?

20Cent wrote: »

You think "slashing" public sector pay is going to help the unemployed?
It will help gamblers who lost alright but will create no new jobs, if fact it will do the opposite and depress the economy even further.

what are you talking about

isnt it much easier for you to sit there and bash public service and then we have a lot of private sector who contribute nothing uselful for our society

gigino wrote: »

A golden pension, with a tax free tip equivalent to almost 2 fine brand new apartments, )

Could you please repeat it again?

gigino wrote: »

what are you going to do with your tip - buy a few apartments with it ?

I think you need a short holiday to think about what constitutes constructive posting.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Welease wrote: »

On the contrary, it make it even more important.. As no funds have been invested there have been no gains to offset the inflationary and other increases over 40 years (assuming a full term). The average PS workers was not being paid ~47K in 1970.. therefore a linear 9% in your calculation would be worth considerable less in real terms today upon retirement..
To put it into perspective the average hourly wage rate in Ireland in 1970 was 9 shillings per hour (45p)... 9% is a pension contribution of about 35p a day or under £2 a week, about 100 quid a year give or take.. If we take the 12K DB portion of a "average" PS salary of 47K.. that 1 year of pension payments in 1970 (£100) covered less than a week of their final pension payment. (rough calcs)

It is also worth noting that the pension levy is a very recent addition, and only applies to a small fraction of the earned benefit years that people have clocked up under the scheme.

Either way.. there are numerous studies and reports which demonstrate a funding level required for DB is considerably more than the 9% you suggested.

Ok - just a couple of clarifications.
The NPR - which I believe also contains public sector pensions is actually invested - well it has been since its inception in 2001 and has been performing better than most funds up until recently. Recently it has been pumped into the multiple black holes that are our banks - we may never see it again.
http://www.nprf.ie/Publications/2010/PerformancePortfolio30June2010.pdf

A large number of recruits to the PS in the past 8 odd years (people have been saying that the numbers have increased massivily in the time) will have paid the pension "levy" for the vast majority of their working lives as well as the usual standard pension contribution, spouse and children pension contribution and indeed the OAP standard pension contribution (of which their own pension is made up of)
Now, the pension levy wont have been paid to any major extent by anyone retiring in the past few years - but thats life as they say.
Another part of life is accepting that things change. One could say the same thing as you have about salary levels in the 70's in relation to the OAP pension....... yet you chose not to.

There are issues with public service pensions, as I have outlined previously, one of which is the tax free nature of the lump sum, another is the linkage of the pension with the finishing grade (although this was forgotten when the grade salary went down) and indeed the major issues we have with PRIVATE sector pensions and what all pension funds are invested in and the large amount that is earned by the "pensions industry".

Welease wrote: »

I think you have taken my post out of context.. I am responding to a previous poster who seemed to be suggesting that a 9% pension payment adequately covered the cost of a final salary DB scheme (and they provided a simplistic mathematical scenario to justify the claim).. My post was to show that their had considerably under called the cost because of the nature of the investments required to fund such a scheme..

I choose not to detail the costs of the OAP funding from the 70's etc. and other pension issues because it was neither relevant to the point Ardmacha was making or my response .

There are of course a multitude of issues with DB schemes (both private and public) in this country (and others).

Apologies, I've just re read the earlier posts and you post makes perfect sense in context.