Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Gumbo · 18-08-2014 2:46pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

You seriously don't know what you're talking about.

If a post 95 employee retires before they are entitled to the coap then they only get the balance of their entitlement until they are old enough to qualify for the coap and the PS pension.

They are two separate pensions. The coap is not a private sector pension.

As the law currently stands, many current post 95 employees can retire on a full pension at 65 of they have 40 years service however they will only qualify for the coap at 66, 67, or 68 years of age.

Again these employees could retire on a full PS pension at 65 but only receive PS less coap for one two or three years before getting a combined half income pension from two different sources, social protection and revenue.

You don't have a clue.

+1

My PS contract is to retire at 65. I only joined in 2009 so will never have full service.
I wont get my COAP until 68, so when i go at 65 i have to fund 3 years myself with the PS portion of my pension only, but i will have my lump sum of course.

ezra_pound · 18-08-2014 3:20pm

kceire wrote: »

+1

My PS contract is to retire at 65. I only joined in 2009 so will never have full service.
I wont get my COAP until 68, so when i go at 65 i have to fund 3 years myself with the PS portion of my pension only, but i will have my lump sum of course.

Yea. Same here.

Just so you know (I presume you do, but just in case)... If you joined post 2004, you can work as long as you like, so you can work until you're 68, or older if you want.

I'm the same, but will have full pension by about 67.

I'm currently purchasing additional years service but will stop shortly as I won't want to retire until about 67 due to shortfall.

ezra_pound · 18-08-2014 3:23pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

Yea. Same here.

Just so you know (I presume you do, but just in case)... If you joined post 2004, you can work as long as you like, so you can work until you're 68, or older if you want.

I'm the same, but will have full pension by about 67.

I'm currently purchasing additional years service but will stop shortly as I won't want to retire until about 67 due to shortfall.

When I stop purchasing the extra years service I'll increase my private pension contribution as my money is worth more in that than in investing in my so called "golden pension".

ezra_pound · 18-08-2014 3:29pm

The mind boggles how so many people are so certain that they are experts on public sector pensions when really they know next to nothing.

A great example of mass/group dunning-kruger effect if ever there was one.

Godge · 18-08-2014 3:39pm

Head The Wall wrote: »

Have you got some documentation that specifically states what is in bold above because I have data that states otherwise

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/greenpaperchapter13.pdf

That means your pension contributions now are not for "your" pension.

You may be misguided by the vague terminology used by the government. Their statement that your pension is half your final salary minus the COAP was just a way to soften the blow to PS who had to start paying full PRSI in 1995.

You can try and split the pension into two distinct entities if you want but the fact is that the pension you and other PS receive comes from the exact same pot

If that is the case then why is it only private sector workers that receive the COAP

]

There is a lot of rubbish in this post.

Firstly, public servants appointed since 1995 receive the COAP.

Secondly, the COAP is funded out of the Social Insurance Fund on a pay-as-you-go basis so that all recipients of the COAP, both public sector and private sector have a pay-as-you-go pension.

Thirdly, those public servants who were appointed since 1995 and have retired receive two payments, one from the Social Insurance Fund for their COAP and the rest of their pension from your taxes. On their behalf, may I say thanks for the contribution.

P.S. I only addressed the most glaring inaccuracies, there are many more.

Godge · 18-08-2014 3:40pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

Yea. Same here.

Just so you know (I presume you do, but just in case)... If you joined post 2004, you can work as long as you like, so you can work until you're 68, or older if you want.

I'm the same, but will have full pension by about 67.

I'm currently purchasing additional years service but will stop shortly as I won't want to retire until about 67 due to shortfall.

The ability to work as long as you like only applies to those recruited after 2004 and before 2013. Think there is now a mandatory retirement age at 70 for new entrants.

japester · 18-08-2014 4:03pm

I'm PS myself but I believe that when you retire early i.e. between 60 and 67 say, and are a Class A PRSI employee, then you would be eligible for the so-called "supplementary pension" to basically give you the same overall pension as you would have got had you been a pre-1995 class D PRSI employee. The only proviso with the suppelmentary pension seems to be that in order to get it you must not be working.

Gumbo · 18-08-2014 6:15pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

Yea. Same here.

Just so you know (I presume you do, but just in case)... If you joined post 2004, you can work as long as you like, so you can work until you're 68, or older if you want.

I'm the same, but will have full pension by about 67.

I'm currently purchasing additional years service but will stop shortly as I won't want to retire until about 67 due to shortfall.

My contract says max working age is 65 but I will look into it. I couldn't afford to buy additional years as it's about 13k to buy back one year. Not financially viable in my case I would think.

japester wrote: »

I'm PS myself but I believe that when you retire early i.e. between 60 and 67 say, and are a Class A PRSI employee, then you would be eligible for the so-called "supplementary pension" to basically give you the same overall pension as you would have got had you been a pre-1995 class D PRSI employee. The only proviso with the suppelmentary pension seems to be that in order to get it you must not be working.

I've heard of this before but I've asked my pension section of salaries and they said I won't, I also asked the pension advisors in Irish Pensions & Finance and they told me id need to fund these years myself.

Also worth noting, that anybody that does for early, it's similar to the a private fund, you don't get the full benefits, so if you go 5 years early at 60 you don't get your pension minus 5 years of benefits, you actually lose a lot more. You only get 75% of your service at that time or equilivant.

drumswan · 18-08-2014 6:20pm

As an outsider, it really is extraordinary to hear people taking about still being with the same employer when they are in their late sixties.

Phoebas · 18-08-2014 7:03pm

drumswan wrote: »

As an outsider, it really is extraordinary to hear people taking about still being with the same employer when they are in their late sixties.

It one of the major perks of working in the public service that is often under appreciated by those who work there.

Many private sector workers as the approach their 50's worry that if their current employment should come to an end they might never work again.

barneystinson · 18-08-2014 7:32pm

Phoebas wrote: »

It one of the major perks of working in the public service that is often under appreciated by those who work there.

Many private sector workers as the approach their 50's worry that if their current employment should come to an end they might never work again.

Or you could say that rather than employees under appreciating something, PS employers genuinely are equal opportunities employers and recognise that people still have a contribution to make.

Phoebas · 18-08-2014 7:46pm

barneystinson wrote: »

Or you could say that rather than employees under appreciating something, PS employers genuinely are equal opportunities employers and recognise that people still have a contribution to make.

No. Thats not the full story. Public service employers impose upper age limits on external entry to many jobs and also don't make established people redundant even when they have surplus headcount.

But they are also really good employers.

kippy · 18-08-2014 9:09pm

drumswan wrote: »

As an outsider, it really is extraordinary to hear people taking about still being with the same employer when they are in their late sixties.

The employer employees 300k odd people with many different opportunities, roles and career changes within it. Its also not going to up sticks and leave and its services to a large extent will always be needed.
Not that strange at all really....

Gumbo · 18-08-2014 11:06pm

Phoebas wrote: »

No. Thats not the full story. Public service employers impose upper age limits on external entry to many jobs and also don't make established people redundant even when they have surplus headcount.

But they are also really good employers.

I don't think any age limits are applied, it's this reason why you do not enter your date of birth on any public service job application as it deemed ageism.

drumswan wrote: »

As an outsider, it really is extraordinary to hear people taking about still being with the same employer when they are in their late sixties.

The PS has such a varied and vast array of jobs and opera unites available to employees. Maybe not now as much but I left the private sector in 2009 from a Consulting engineering firm, who are still very busy today and actively looking for staff, to join in a different role, but have progressed, continued my study and am branching into Fire Safety in Buildings now.

If you have the right qualifications, and good experience to back it up, especially private sector experience before entering the PS, it can go a long way.

I like the working environment in the PS, I like the way the employee gets all their rights by law, that some others consider perks! I like the work life balance, as in I can go to work an hour later today, but stay an hour later to make up for it. I can drop my son to crèche as his mother works in the opposite direction, and still works a full day chasing the private sector and ensuring they are doing things right

(in my line of work anyhow).

noodler · 18-08-2014 11:10pm

As a new 'new' entrant (i.e. someone unlucky enough to start at the bottom of these new 'combined' pay scales, I would surely love some movement on this as my pay is so much lower than not only the pre-2011 staff but even the 'new entrants' from 2011 onwards.

Nevermind my inferior pension conditions.

Its easy to make excuses for someone like myself <30,000 but I wouldn't be as keen for reversals for those on the higher brackets.

I guess it depends on your own position.

Gumbo · 18-08-2014 11:13pm

noodler wrote: »

As a new 'new' entrant (i.e. someone unlucky enough to start at the bottom of these new 'combined' pay scales, I would surely love some movement on this as my pay is so much lower than not only the pre-2011 staff but even the 'new entrants' from 2011 onwards.

Nevermind my inferior pension conditions.

Its easy to make excuses for someone like myself <30,000 but I wouldn't be as keen for reversals for those on the higher brackets.

I guess it depends on your own position.

I don't want to see pay increases yet. I'd rather see a drop or abolishment of the Pension Levy and Abolish the USC. That way everybody benefits, everybody gets a few quid back, and we can all go for a pint again.

Godge · 18-08-2014 11:30pm

drumswan wrote: »

As an outsider, it really is extraordinary to hear people taking about still being with the same employer when they are in their late sixties.

Explain to me how the vast majority of teachers could work for someone other than the State.

Or gardai?

Vizzy · 18-08-2014 11:34pm

kceire wrote: »

I don't want to see pay increases yet. I'd rather see a drop or abolishment of the Pension Levy and Abolish the USC. That way everybody benefits, everybody gets a few quid back, and we can all go for a pint again.

Yep, as I said earlier in the thread my last increment was paid in Sept 2008 and I have learned to "cut my cloth" since then and have cut back my spending etc to match my income so I look forward to the day when I have a few extra quid to spend "recklessly":)

drumswan · 18-08-2014 11:35pm

Godge wrote: »

Explain to me how the vast majority of teachers could work for someone other than the State.

Or gardai?

What percentage of these people are teachers and gardai?

kippy · 18-08-2014 11:44pm

drumswan wrote: »

What percentage of these people are teachers and gardai?

Roughly 12000 Gardai, Id guesstimate about 50000 teachers (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080722040926AASGddG)
Figures are pretty old.
Roughly 20%

Whats the relevance?

Head The Wall · 19-08-2014 7:10am

Godge wrote: »

Explain to me how the vast majority of teachers could work for someone other than the State.

Or gardai?

Really, so teachers only work for the govt. Never heard of private schools, diverge into another career path, teach English in another country.

And as for guards, well we all know loads that are landlords, security etc. Most of them find things to do after they retire at 50+

ezra_pound · 19-08-2014 7:36am

Head The Wall wrote: »

Really, so teachers only work for the govt. Never heard of private schools, diverge into another career path, teach English in another country.

And as for guards, well we all know loads that are landlords, security etc. Most of them find things to do after they retire at 50+

Teachers in private schools are still public sector workers.

kippy · 19-08-2014 7:43am

Head The Wall wrote: »

Really, so teachers only work for the govt. Never heard of private schools, diverge into another career path, teach English in another country.

And as for guards, well we all know loads that are landlords, security etc. Most of them find things to do after they retire at 50+

Am not getting the point here. This came about because someone found it strange to work for the same employer all your life. I think the comment has been explained at this point. Are you just looking for an argument?

Monife · 19-08-2014 9:51am

noodler wrote: »

As a new 'new' entrant (i.e. someone unlucky enough to start at the bottom of these new 'combined' pay scales, I would surely love some movement on this as my pay is so much lower than not only the pre-2011 staff but even the 'new entrants' from 2011 onwards.

Nevermind my inferior pension conditions.

Its easy to make excuses for someone like myself <30,000 but I wouldn't be as keen for reversals for those on the higher brackets.

I guess it depends on your own position.

I feel your pain, I am in the same position.

But I agree with the poster in that abolishing USC would be more productive for the nation as a whole and they can revisit restoring pay another time. The USC is just another form of income tax which I think is grossly unfair especially seeing as everybody has to pay it no matter how much you earn.

The pay restoration might never happen as Howlin said it will commence end of 2016 or early 2017 when FG/LAB will probably not be in government and whoever gets in government may change their mind. It is definitely just a vote buying technique and I am not falling for it, I won't be voting FG or LAB in the general election!

noodler · 19-08-2014 10:16am

The USC brings in about 4bn euros a year.

It can't be abolished.

A tweaking of the income tax bands is probaly at the uppermost of what the country can afford (if even).

aliveandkicking · 19-08-2014 10:28am

Monife wrote: »

I won't be voting FG or LAB in the general election!

So you want FF back in then do you? i.e. the people who caused the mess and introduced the USC you want abolished.

kippy · 19-08-2014 10:39am

noodler wrote: »

The USC brings in about 4bn euros a year.

It can't be abolished.

A tweaking of the income tax bands is probaly at the uppermost of what the country can afford (if even).

Yeah, it's a fair earner for the state.
I would suggest however that cutting it might be an option at some point in the near future.
Seeing as how the Water and property taxes have come on stream since.

It would at least give some form of a break to the hard pressed income earners. I'd also suggest further incentives to business's to hire permanant paid employees along with the scrapping of jobbridge.

Monife · 19-08-2014 11:18am

aliveandkicking wrote: »

So you want FF back in then do you? i.e. the people who caused the mess and introduced the USC you want abolished.

Who said I would vote for FF? Never have and never will.

comongethappy · 19-08-2014 11:28am

kippy wrote: »

Yeah, it's a fair earner for the state.
I would suggest however that cutting it might be an option at some point in the near future.
Seeing as how the Water and property taxes have come on stream since.

It would at least give some form of a break to the hard pressed income earners. I'd also suggest further incentives to business's to hire permanant paid employees along with the scrapping of jobbridge.

Well, the LPT takes in about 400 million.
Any offsetting reduction in USC would be modest.

The gov already pay a grant of €7k - €10k to a company who hires someone who has been on the dole for over a year.

noodler · 19-08-2014 11:43am

comongethappy wrote: »

The gov already pay a grant of €7k - €10k to a company who hires someone who has been on the dole for over a year.

Do they?

Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Comments