Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

fliball123 · 13-08-2014 03:08PM

kippy wrote: »

You seem to assume that a person in the public sector pays NOTHING for their pension and that the state pays for ALL of it - thats not in any way correct.

i never said they pay nothing for it.. I said the full costs of public sector pensions is not meet by the payments being made by the ps workers even with the pensions levy to cover the cost of those pensions..The tax payer funds the rest

fliball123 · 13-08-2014 03:10PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Mainly because their employers are too mean to help them with their pensions

maybe but if my employer was broke and borrowing i would be lucky to be getting a wage..let alone a pension

barneystinson · 13-08-2014 03:11PM

fliball123 wrote: »

You also forget that your employer also pays PRSI on your behave? so how many more years is that?

Well now you can't have it both ways, I'm a class A PRSI contributor, same as you, and my employer is contributing towards
1) my OAP, which will form part of my PS pension,
2) the remainder of my PS pension.

Kinda defeating your own argument there.

fliball123 · 13-08-2014 03:12PM

barneystinson wrote: »

This has got nothing to do with those in the private sector who can't afford a pension, I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

The pension scheme is there, it's a legal entity, and it ain't going away.

What's actually relevant is the extent to which the employer (in this case the state) is funding the pension, and to what extent the employees are funding their own future pension benefits.

Borrowing from your insistence that the PRD is a contribution, I'd much rather if i could opt out and have an extra 15% or so in gross pay, and worry about my own pension provision. But unfortunately that's not an option.

I keep bringing it up because these people who cant afford their own pensions are being squeezed to cover 300k currently working and all of the ex workers pensions. Do you not see the moral hazard in that.

I would agree with you they should unilaterally change to a defined contribution scheme and let you guys pay as much or as little as you want.

fliball123 · 13-08-2014 03:15PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Well now you can't have it both ways, I'm a class A PRSI contributor, same as you, and my employer is contributing towards
1) my OAP, which will form part of my PS pension,
2) the remainder of my PS pension.

Kinda defeating your own argument there.

Yes but the difference here is if my employer was broke and borrowing I would be getting nothing no wage no prsi and even with your prsi payments, pension levy and what ever you put to it it still will not cover the cost of the pension.

The PS lads on here are gas you compare private with public when suits and then back away when it doesnt suit

If you want to compare..If my employer was broke and borrowing a 800 million this month to keep the lights on I would be told where to go for my pension and wage.

antoobrien · 13-08-2014 03:18PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course they are entitled to the full OAP, isn't everyone else with 40 years contributions?

Simple answer - no

Rightwing · 13-08-2014 03:19PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Yes but the difference here is if my employer was broke and borrowing I would be getting nothing no wage no prsi and even with your prsi payments, pension levy and what ever you put to it it still will not cover the cost of the pension.

The PS lads on here are gas you compare private with public when suits and then back away when it doesnt suit

If you want to compare..If my employer was broke and borrowing a 800 million this month to keep the lights on I would be told where to go for my pension and wage.

Correct, the public sector pensions are a disgrace. The state will ultimately not be able to pay them. I also believe the younger PS workers will lose out.

barneystinson · 13-08-2014 03:19PM

fliball123 wrote: »

I keep bringing it up because these people who cant afford their own pensions are being squeezed to cover 300k currently working and all of the ex workers pensions. Do you not see the moral hazard in that.

I would agree with you they should unilaterally change to a defined contribution scheme and let you guys pay as much or as little as you want.

Moral hazard? I think you're just throwing jargon around now - you'll have to explain that one to me...

I'd have no problem with that proposal, as long as the employer's contribution is sufficient.

One scheme I'm familiar with is the CWPS operated by the construction industry, there the employer pays 60% of the contribution and the employee pays 40%.

Again, using your definition of a contribution, I'm contributing 15% so if my employer contributes 1.5times that, that'd be 22.5%, giving a total contribution of 37.5% of my gross.

Happy days.

fliball123 · 13-08-2014 03:20PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct, the public sector pensions are a disgrace. The state will ultimately not be able to pay them. I also believe the younger PS workers will lose out.

i dont know I think it will be a combo effect of screwing the new recruits and the tax payer.....

barneystinson · 13-08-2014 03:22PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct, the public sector pensions are a disgrace. The state will ultimately not be able to pay them. I also believe the younger PS workers will lose out.

They already have been, with the move to a career average pension rather than final salary.

fliball123 · 13-08-2014 03:23PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Moral hazard? I think you're just throwing jargon around now - you'll have to explain that one to me...

I'd have no problem with that proposal, as long as the employer's contribution is sufficient.

One scheme I'm familiar with is that operated by the construction industry, there the employer pays 60% of the contribution and the employee pays 40%.

Again, using your definition of a contribution, I'm contributing 15% so if my employer contributes 1.5times that, that'd be 22.5%, giving a total contribution of 37.5% of my gross.

Happy days.

So you do not see the moral hazard in asking 1.3million income tax payers to pay more (water charges on the way) or for the government to borrow more to pay for a pension for 300k plus the already retired in the PS. yet a large % of these 1.3 million workers cannot afford to put anything into a private pension. So if the pay rises are given next year that also has a knock on effect for both current and future ps retirees and will cost more for the tax payer..Which means given that we are still in debt and borrowing..We either pay it via taxation increase or by borrowing.

barneystinson · 13-08-2014 03:25PM

fliball123 wrote: »

So you do not see the moral hazard in asking 1.3million income tax payers to pay more (water charges on the way) or for the government to borrow more to pay for a pension for 300k plus the already retired in the PS. yet a large % of these 1.3 million workers cannot afford to put anything into a private pension. So if the pay rises are given next year that also has a knock on effect for both current and future ps retirees and will cost more for the tax payer..Which means given that we are still in debt and borrowing..We either pay it via taxation increase or by borrowing.

I don't think you understand what the phrase moral hazard means.

Rightwing · 13-08-2014 03:28PM

fliball123 wrote: »

i dont know I think it will be a combo effect of screwing the new recruits and the tax payer.....

I agree, the cash won't be there when they retire though. Lots of services need to be privatised.

fliball123 · 13-08-2014 03:28PM

barneystinson wrote: »

I don't think you understand what the phrase moral hazard means.

the unions are taking a risk looking for pay rises and if they get them they will not have bare the cost of them. The money will be found via the tax payer..That is moral hazard at its very core. The unions bare no consequence if the ps get the rise or if they don't

Tigger · 13-08-2014 03:30PM

not yet wrote: »

Yes, but did you not say they were now on the dole..

It must really catch in you throat to see a PS worker get a pension,

Fcuking shame on you to begrudge a man a decent pension after 40 years service.

nothing early about retiring after 40 years

kippy · 13-08-2014 03:31PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I agree, the cash won't be there when they retire though. Lots of services need to be privatised.

Yeah, privitisation is the answer to all our ills......

fliball123 · 13-08-2014 03:33PM

kippy wrote: »

Yeah, privitisation is the answer to all our ills......

In some areas it would be

Little CuChulainn · 13-08-2014 03:43PM

fliball123 wrote: »

In some areas it would be

What privatisation projects would you consider successful so far?

Rightwing · 13-08-2014 03:52PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What privatisation projects would you consider successful so far?

When services like the bins are privatised, the tax payer should expect to pay less. That's the problem. No one wants privatisation if the waste and taxes continues to surge.

PeteFalk78 · 13-08-2014 03:54PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct, the public sector pensions are a disgrace. The state will ultimately not be able to pay them. I also believe the younger PS workers will lose out.

That is the second time you used the word "disgrace" when referring to PS pensions. When asked to elaborate earlier you simply disappeared or ignored for a few days.

If you can back up your statement with some meaningful reasoning then it would be a great benefit....otherwise you are coming across as a bitter unintelligent hack.

Rightwing · 13-08-2014 03:56PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

That is the second time you used the word "disgrace" when referring to PS pensions. When asked to elaborate earlier you simply disappeared or ignored for a few days.

If you can back up your statement with some meaningful reasoning then it would be a great benefit....otherwise you are coming across as a bitter unintelligent hack.

Highlight the 2 posts where I used that word and I will duly apologise to all if that is the case. Otherwise, I would expect similar from you.

Thanks in advance.

PeteFalk78 · 13-08-2014 03:59PM

This thread is going around in circles. I'm out.

@Fliball - that interview you done in the PS must have been a real humdinger. You've go real issues there buddy, most people will just continue on with life and are not so bitter. I've spent too much time on this thread whilst being getting paid by your hard earned taxes. I suppose I may do some work today before I go home.

Another days contribution to my pension. Not me......you.

Thanks buddy.

Little CuChulainn · 13-08-2014 04:05PM

As yet, nobody has been able to show any actual costings for a PS pension to justify the claim they are a "disgrace". I mean, the salary scales are generally available publicly so it shouldn't be too hard to show accurate workings.

PeteFalk78 · 13-08-2014 04:09PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As yet, nobody has been able to show any actual costings for a PS pension to justify the claim they are a "disgrace". I mean, the salary scales are generally available publicly so it shouldn't be too hard to show accurate workings.

I did a very basic bare bones calculation for referral (quoted below). None of the PS bashers elaborated on it. I would love Rightwing and Fliball to dissect it and detail how disgraceful and outrageous it is.

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Say the average public sector pay is 60k a year I think, so lets take it from there for the average post 1995 public sector worker.

That person would pay roughly €130 in pension related deductions a week.

That's 270k contributed to a pension over 40 years (we'll bring this down to 240k because of scales and salaries)

That person can expect a lump sum of 90k upon retirement. That brings the pot down to 150k of own monies put in. Excluding any SW handouts...... that person is entitled to 18k a year pension. 150k/18k = 8 years pension before they even reach parity with what they've contributed.

Riskymove · 13-08-2014 04:12PM

Riskymove wrote: »

well with both Fliball and now myself here ...... I think we are all present and correct and can now rehash the last 5 years or so of Irish Economy pointless arguments!!

increments...check
levy a tax or contribution...check
PS incompetence....check
the bail out, borrowing etc.....check
gold-plated pensions...check

and so on and so forth

12 pages of this stuff since I posted this just yesterday

plus la change!!

barneystinson · 13-08-2014 04:14PM

Riskymove wrote: »

12 pages of this stuff since I posted this just yesterday

plus la change!!

In keeping with the spirit of the thread:

Plus ça change you mean

not yet · 13-08-2014 04:20PM

Just in relation to the pension issue.

It must be taken into account that a huge % of these people will be dead 5-8 from pension age. It must also be taken into account that private companies nearly always at least match the employees contribution, sometime double or treble.

It is vital to the argument that people realise that a PS worker will receive a small % of the state pension as it is means tested against any other income (PS pension) so in effect the state is saving approx 130euro per person per week on the state pension.

not yet · 13-08-2014 04:22PM

When services are sold off the only ones to win are big business.

They employ staff at minimum wage, cut the service to the bone, and care about nothing only profit.

PeteFalk78 · 13-08-2014 04:24PM

not yet wrote: »

It is vital to the argument that people realise that a PS worker will receive a small % of the state pension as it is means tested against any other income (PS pension) so in effect the state is saving approx 130euro per person per week on the state pension.

Is that true for post 1995 PS though? I thought that they have a Class A PRSI so will receive a full OAP upon retirement?

antoobrien · 13-08-2014 04:25PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I did a very basic bare bones calculation for referral (quoted below). None of the PS bashers elaborated on it.

What are the assumptions it's based on apart from 60k salary (i.e. contribution rate etc).

Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Comments