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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

How much do you think I should get paid?

1…5681011

Comments

  • #212
    Browney7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,100 ✭✭✭Browney7


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    Again we have public servants working out things based on net pay to portray themselves as low paid, lets take for example the travel expenses you would be elegible for a Tax saver ticket through work which is deducted from your GROSS wage to avail of the tax benefits which would save you a lot on travel expenses.

    And the lunch expenses are another cop-out is there something wrong with making your own and bringing it in to work to save money.

    You knew the salary when you joined so to complain about it after the event when you could be saving money quite easily then giving it the poor me is a joke.

    Can petrol costs, insurance and car maintenance costs be offset against tax??? Wow must get on to the tax man about that. Anyway if it is a bus/train this person uses they save a massive 20% is it considering they are paying the lower rate. Maybe the poster you are replying to lives in a rural area with bog all public transport.


  • #213
    blue2school
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16 ✭blue2school


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    Again we have public servants working out things based on net pay to portray themselves as low paid, lets take for example the travel expenses you would be elegible for a Tax saver ticket through work which is deducted from your GROSS wage to avail of the tax benefits which would save you a lot on travel expenses.

    And the lunch expenses are another cop-out is there something wrong with making your own and bringing it in to work to save money.

    You knew the salary when you joined so to complain about it after the event when you could be saving money quite easily then giving it the poor me is a joke.


    Dont agree with you mate, I did know the expected salary and if i was on what i'd been told i'd be on now three years on i wouldnt have a problem. I'm not greedy but i think its reasonable to expect a weeks pay not a paper boy wage. Who doesnt take a job based on the pay increasing in the future. You havent a clue pal, better off sticking to the tele eddie h obbs.


  • #214
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    blue2school wrote: »
    Dont agree with you mate, I did know the expected salary and if i was on what i'd been told i'd be on now three years on i wouldnt have a problem. I'm not greedy but i think its reasonable to expect a weeks pay not a paper boy wage. Who doesnt take a job based on the pay increasing in the future. You havent a clue pal, better off sticking to the tele eddie h obbs.

    I woud make an uneducated guess (and if I am talking BS, I will be happy to retract my comment) but many of the lower paid staff will still be getting their increments (unless they are at the top of their scale- but then I wouldn't consider them lower paid) so that even after the pay cut, their gross pay is higher now than three years ago?


  • #215
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    blue2school wrote: »
    Dont agree with you mate, I did know the expected salary and if i was on what i'd been told i'd be on now three years on i wouldnt have a problem. I'm not greedy but i think its reasonable to expect a weeks pay not a paper boy wage. Who doesnt take a job based on the pay increasing in the future. You havent a clue pal, better off sticking to the tele eddie h obbs.


    Have you received increments in the last 3 years?

    Your complaining about your wages being low AFTER you spend some of it on expenses when there are ways and means to spend less thus giving you more take home money. Keep looking for excuses to complain about something that you have control over im sure somebody will listen.


  • #216
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    Browney7 wrote: »
    Can petrol costs, insurance and car maintenance costs be offset against tax??? Wow must get on to the tax man about that. Anyway if it is a bus/train this person uses they save a massive 20% is it considering they are paying the lower rate. Maybe the poster you are replying to lives in a rural area with bog all public transport.

    Im confused now so saving 20% @ the lower rate is bad? If the poster cant see that there are ways and means available to save money in realation to travel expenses and lunch for work then he cant exactly claim that they are hard done by when they are partly to blame themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    sarumite wrote: »
    I woud make an uneducated guess (and if I am talking BS, I will be happy to retract my comment) but many of the lower paid staff will still be getting their increments (unless they are at the top of their scale- but then I wouldn't consider them lower paid) so that even after the pay cut, their gross pay is higher now than three years ago?

    Could be the reason that they all talk about net pay, conveniently skewing the figures to back up the "low paid" bs.


  • #218
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    Could be the reason that they all talk about net pay, conveniently skewing the figures to back up the "low paid" bs.

    Net pay is the relevant pay to talk about. Gross is no use it is the net that ends up in your pocket that is important to people.


  • #219
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    20Cent wrote: »
    Net pay is the relevant pay to talk about. Gross is no use it is the net that ends up in your pocket that is important to people.

    However if you are comparing salaries then gross is the only way to do it.


  • #220
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    BrianD3 wrote: »
    And what was the average salary of a private sector clerical officer equivalent between 1971 and 2011. Or possibly 1971 and 1981 because as I posted earlier, they only seem to need 10 years of PRSI contributions for a full COAP.

    Their average salary was low. As a result their PRSI contributions was low.

    Yet now in 2011, they're entitled to an 11.9k pension. Their pension could be substantially more than the salary they earned when they were working.

    Well this is exactly the same for the public sector worker which is why I was specifically talking about the extra pension a public sector worker gets over a private sector worker and how much extra the private sector worker would have to pay to fund an equivalent pension.


  • #221
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    20Cent wrote: »
    Net pay is the relevant pay to talk about. Gross is no use it is the net that ends up in your pocket that is important to people.

    Again, I would hazard a guess (a bit more educated this time) and say that the combined pay and pensions of a private sector worker in an equivalent role will not have seen an incremental rise similar to a PS worker. So if talking net pay, the PS worker is probably still better off. Though personally I have never seen people quote net pay figures, they always quote gross.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    20Cent wrote: »
    Net pay is the relevant pay to talk about. Gross is no use it is the net that ends up in your pocket that is important to people.

    Exactly, people on the dole get a straight payment. No tax, USC, PRSI or compulsory pension contributions. So why wouldn't people compare their take home pay to this.

    People shouldn't be including vol contributions they make though such as union subs etc.


  • #223
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    sollar wrote: »
    Exactly, people on the dole get a straight payment. No tax, USC, PRSI or compulsory pension contributions. So why wouldn't people compare their take home pay to this.

    People shouldn't be including vol contributions they make though such as union subs etc.

    As an off topic comment: Why are union subs taken from gross pay and not net pay?


  • #224
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    sarumite wrote: »
    As an off topic comment: Why are union subs taken from gross pay and not net pay?

    No idea?


  • #225
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    sollar wrote: »
    No idea?

    They used to be tax deductable. Not any more since last budget.

    If using net pay then it implies married people are paid more than single people. Obviously they aren't so it is easier for everyone if gross pay is used then person circumstances don't come into it, such as various different tax allowances, pension contributions etc


  • #226
    blue2school
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16 ✭blue2school


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    Have you received increments in the last 3 years?

    Your complaining about your wages being low AFTER you spend some of it on expenses when there are ways and means to spend less thus giving you more take home money. Keep looking for excuses to complain about something that you have control over im sure somebody will listen.


    I have received increments but the pay cuts outweight the gain. And it seems that any future increments will be again offset against future public sector pay cuts. As for the taxsaver intiative its only benefical if your spending on long distance travel like the scheme currently in operation in my dept. I'm one of the lucky ones in my job, my travel expenses is relatively small. You can cut back all you want, putting the tea bags on the washing line will only save you so much.

    Anyway If you think 400 a week is enough to support someone in this day & age your either delusional or someone who is hoping that by reducing civil servant pay the goverment will stop reducing your own. I've a lot of sympathay for people on social welfare in todays climate considering how hard it is getting by working.

    Enough said.


  • #227
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    blue2school wrote: »
    Anyway If you think 400 a week is enough to support someone in this day & age your either delusional or someone who is hoping that by reducing civil servant pay the goverment will stop reducing your own. I've a lot of sympathay for people on social welfare in todays climate considering how hard it is getting by working.

    Enough said.

    When you started your job was the pay enough? How much are you do you feel you should be earning to "support someone in this day and age" and were you previously earning that amount? I just find it hard to see if you are earning about €26,000 a year and have received increments for last 3 years how the pay cuts & tax rises can have effected you much


  • #228
    blue2school
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16 ✭blue2school


    OMD wrote: »
    When you started your job was the pay enough? How much are you do you feel you should be earning to "support someone in this day and age" and were you previously earning that amount? I just find it hard to see if you are earning about €26,000 a year and have received increments for last 3 years how the pay cuts & tax rises can have effected you much


    It effected me cause i was living at home & had no outgoing rent, food, bills etc. I would say 28k is not unreasonable to say not 24.5K like my P60 says after pension levy, widow & orphans deductions etc. We also do not have the luxury of pulling out of our pension because its mandatory. Theres a lot of stick thrown at CS workers because of our "generous" pension. I would gladly take my chances of having the option to pull out of my pension whether it was madness or not in the hope later in life my personal financial situation improved. How much would you say? All i'm saying is civil servants are all brandished with the same brush suppose its to be expected, i think its not unreasonable to expect just an average standard of living.


  • #229
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    blue2school wrote: »
    It effected me cause i was living at home & had no outgoing food bills etc. I would say 28k would not be unreasonable to say not 24.5 K like my P60 says after pension levy.

    So your lifestyle has changed and your pay doesn't support this change in lifestyle.

    A pay increase to 28K a year would give you a take home pay of €422 a week assuming you are single.


  • #230
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    OMD wrote: »
    So your lifestyle has changed and your pay doesn't support this change in lifestyle.

    A pay increase to 28K a year would give you a take home pay of €422 a week assuming you are single.

    Of course people lifestyles do change over time. The older you get the more responsibilities you have. Getting married, children etc


  • #231
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    20Cent wrote: »
    Of course people lifestyles do change over time. The older you get the more responsibilities you have. Getting married, children etc

    He feels that €422 would be an ok wage but to think someone can survive on €400 is "delusional". I would say everyone would feel they would be ok if they had 5% more from the guy on the dole to the guy earning €200K a year


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    blue2school
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16 ✭blue2school


    OMD wrote: »
    He feels that €422 would be an ok wage but to think someone can survive on €400 is "delusional". I would say everyone would feel they would be ok if they had 5% more from the guy on the dole to the guy earning €200K a year

    That refers to the user who thinks someone on 400 should be grateful & able to support himself no problem. I dont think 422 is great either buts thats my point, we're talking low wages & people seem to think its acceptable to live on low wages without complaint.


  • #233
    lasnoufle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭lasnoufle


    blue2school wrote: »
    Anyway If you think 400 a week is enough to support someone in this day & age your either delusional or someone who is hoping that by reducing civil servant pay the goverment will stop reducing your own. I've a lot of sympathay for people on social welfare in todays climate considering how hard it is getting by working.
    Who's delusionnal I wonder. I've kept trace of everything I've spent for the last 5 months, and guess what? Granted I'm single with no kids, but I live with 1000 euros a month on average (less than 250 a week, WOW!). And that includes holidays (1 week skiing in France and 10 days in New York so that's not even what I'd consider "cheap" holidays, and a couple of weekends in Paris (but with no accomodation costs)).

    Remove the holidays and that makes it about 600 a month. 150 a week. Less than the dole, and that includes the rent.


  • #234
    CashMoney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 127 ✭✭CashMoney


    blue2school wrote: »
    That refers to the user who thinks someone on 400 should be grateful & able to support himself no problem. I dont think 422 is great either buts thats my point, we're talking low wages & people seem to think its acceptable to live on low wages without complaint.

    If unskilled people shouldn't be on low wages, who should?

    Not everybody can be on medium/high wages...


  • #235
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    blue2school wrote: »
    It effected me cause i was living at home & had no outgoing rent, food, bills etc. I would say 28k is not unreasonable to say not 24.5K like my P60 says after pension levy, widow & orphans deductions etc. We also do not have the luxury of pulling out of our pension because its mandatory. Theres a lot of stick thrown at CS workers because of our "generous" pension. I would gladly take my chances of having the option to pull out of my pension whether it was madness or not in the hope later in life my personal financial situation improved. How much would you say? All i'm saying is civil servants are all brandished with the same brush suppose its to be expected, i think its not unreasonable to expect just an average standard of living.


    I am not getting at you but if you look at the civil service structure, a clerical officer is the lowest grade. Surely, therefore they should be paid lower than the average and therefore have a standard of living below the average. In that context, it is unreasonable to expect just an average standard of living.


  • #236
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    blue2school wrote: »
    I have received increments but the pay cuts outweight the gain. And it seems that any future increments will be again offset against future public sector pay cuts. As for the taxsaver intiative its only benefical if your spending on long distance travel like the scheme currently in operation in my dept. I'm one of the lucky ones in my job, my travel expenses is relatively small. You can cut back all you want, putting the tea bags on the washing line will only save you so much.

    Anyway If you think 400 a week is enough to support someone in this day & age your either delusional or someone who is hoping that by reducing civil servant pay the goverment will stop reducing your own. I've a lot of sympathay for people on social welfare in todays climate considering how hard it is getting by working.

    Enough said.

    There is one of us delusional and to be fair it isnt me.


  • #237
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    CashMoney wrote: »
    If unskilled people shouldn't be on low wages, who should?

    Not everybody can be on medium/high wages...

    I don't think he was expecting to be on higher wages he just doesn't think he should be on lower wages.


  • #238
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    sollar wrote: »
    I don't think he was expecting to be on higher wages he just doesn't think he should be on lower wages.

    Basically he expects to be on higher wages to do the same job because he needs more money to maintain his lifestyle, all at the same he has received increments which negate most of the cuts.

    am i missing something here?


  • #239
    Head The Wall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    blue2school wrote: »
    After attending college & currently 31 years of age to be expected to do a days work & live on that salary is nothing short of a joke.

    You don't even need a leaving cert for your job so if you have a college education it doesn't entitle you to any more in your current job.

    I would say you are the foolish one for not using your education and ending up in a paper shuffling job and then complaining about it. Why don't you get a proper job and utilise your qualification and stop the "poor me" bitchin and whining
    blue2school wrote: »
    I have received increments but the pay cuts outweight the gain. And it seems that any future increments will be again offset against future public sector pay cuts.


    Anyway If you think 400 a week is enough to support someone in this day & age your either delusional or someone who is hoping that by reducing civil servant pay the goverment will stop reducing your own.

    We had this discussion with another poster who was in the PS 3 years and his gross wages had actually gone up since he started, this was after the paycut and pension levy had been taken off. Yes his net pay had decreased but that was due to Tax increases and USC. You sir are talking from where the sun don't shine.

    You really are the deluded one if you think someone can't survive on 400 a week.
    20Cent wrote: »
    Of course people lifestyles do change over time. The older you get the more responsibilities you have. Getting married, children etc

    Well the govt shouldn't be responsible to fund the lifestyles and responsibilities they "choose" to make, it's up to people to look after themselves. Unless of course they are PS workers and they expect everything handed to them on a plate.
    sollar wrote: »
    I don't think he was expecting to be on higher wages he just doesn't think he should be on lower wages.

    Well maybe he's starting to realise that it's not his decision to make.


  • #240
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    blue2school wrote: »
    I have received increments but the pay cuts outweight the gain. And it seems that any future increments will be again offset against future public sector pay cuts. As for the taxsaver intiative its only benefical if your spending on long distance travel like the scheme currently in operation in my dept. I'm one of the lucky ones in my job, my travel expenses is relatively small. You can cut back all you want, putting the tea bags on the washing line will only save you so much.

    Anyway If you think 400 a week is enough to support someone in this day & age your either delusional or someone who is hoping that by reducing civil servant pay the goverment will stop reducing your own. I've a lot of sympathay for people on social welfare in todays climate considering how hard it is getting by working.

    Enough said.

    I live on €250 pw. If you think you can't live on 400 a week then I suggest you take a serious look at where your money is going.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    blue2school
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16 ✭blue2school


    sarumite wrote: »
    I live on €250 pw. If you think you can't live on 400 a week then I suggest you take a serious look at where your money is going.


    250 a week?? where do you live on the street.


Advertisement