So what further deductions in pay would you be prepared to endure?
What will happen when/if the PService deal is rejected?
- Thread starter thedaras
- Start date
So what further deductions in pay would you be prepared to endure?
Except of course if you work in either of our two major Banks , both of whom paid the first tranche of the national Wage Agreement towards 2016 .
One sector that we can all agree played a major part in our economic downfall , surely ?
What do you mean by "net pay"? The phrase is usually used to mean after tax pay. If that was the case then gross pay must be down by around 30%. Is this the case?
+1 .. that's it in a nutshell
If anyone is seeing this reduction I'd recommend having a close look at their payslip - mistakes aren't unknown by payroll depts.
But perhaps it's the simple mistake I've heard some public servants make where they think a avg 5% paycut + avg 7%pension + 6%tax adds up to a rounded net 20%. Usually to complete the Béal bocht they throw in some hoped for payrises to round it up to 25%.
Using TaxCalc.eu I see that since 2008 there's an 11.3% reduction in net pay for a public servant earning 50k. The reduction for a private sector worker is 4.7% so there's a 6.6% difference in net terms. (We'll assume that the private sector worker makes no pension contribution and wasn't laid off or had a pay cut.)
Worse off would be a public sector worker on 30k with a 13.2% reduction whereas a private sector worker would have seen a 4.5% cut. However overall I believe both the median and average incomes were around the 45-55k level.
On an individual basis the difference would be less again if a public sector worker received a pay increment in 2009 and 2010 - as 10's of thousands no doubt will.
Honestly don't know, I know what I could afford to take without it affecting my standard of living, mainly because aside from a mortgage, I don't have any other personal debt. My concern would be that long term savings plans for education/pension etc would suffer. However, if it was 10% or so, I'd endure it because I'd have to. It's still more then the dole
In real terms, the cuts were probably more severe because variable pay (eg bonus/commission etc) were also cut
Well what if you were forced with a pay cut that DID affect your standard of living or even your ability to cover the basics. That's the situation a lot of public servants are already in not withstanding the possibility of further cuts. I know of some colleagues who qualify for Family Income Support by dint of their low income. These are among the people that many here would like to see their pay cut further.
The 20% net reduction in pay is the consequence of the pension levy, salary "adjustment" and various tax increases. The bottom line figures on my salary slip don't lie.
Yes but it's not the private sector. If I and others like me were on the dole, you, and others like you, could expect to have your public services provided on a voluntary basis.
Then you'd have something to complain about.
I'd probably look for another job.
I've got staff in the same position. No one wants to take a pay cut and no one wants others to take pay cuts, it's just that we don't have the money
I, or anyone who works in my company, doesn't have increments either, so the effect on our take home pay is likely to be more longer term then public sector employees who have got increments
So your take home pay is down 20%. That's a big drop but it's not all because of pay cuts. The PS pension levy is, in my opinion, a pay cut by another name. I don't see how you can count tax increases as a pay cut though.
So the lesson that the Irish government want us to pass on to our children is -
get a job in the Public Sector,
get a job in the bank,
get a job in the ESB
You could do worse
So the lesson that the Irish government want us to pass on to our children is -
get a job in the Public Sector,
get a job in the bank,
get a job in the ESB
If that not the advice they have been giving for the last 70 years?
I don't. I said my net pay was down 20%. Pay cuts, pension levies, income levies, tax hikes. Regardless of what they're called, they all eat away at the bottom line. Cumulative effect, 20%.
Staples;1038664;Yes but it's not the private sector. If I and others like me were on the dole said:And wouldn't you? Complain that is..when you are paying so much for a service to be provided....
If I and others like me, were on the dole,you could expect to have your private services provided on a voluntary basis..
Then you would have something to complain about,,but waitaminute...bit of a difference here, you can choose not to use the service or go to another service provider ,one who is competitive by cutting costs etc...
I suspect you haven't used taxcalc.eu to support your view that you're down 20%, in reality only massive salaries saw this sort of net decrease. Average salaries are down as I mentioned above by about 11-12% which is about 6-7% worse than people unaffected by non tax related cuts.
Looking at your payslip is useful, but you actually need to put it alongside the 2008 equivalent to see what effect tax relief has on the bottom line.
I've seen a few public service pay slips and noticed they show the pension levy clearly whereas the tax relief is correctly done but hidden away in the tax paid figures. As a result people thought they were relatively worse off than they were.
The payslip makes it seem worse than it is, my advice again go to taxcalc.eu and see the real decrease. What it feels like, what it looks like, and what it actually is are different things.
Exaggerating the severity of the cuts only lessens sympathy for what was genuinely a substantial pay cut.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
The big difference between public and private sector is that in the private sector, reduced revenue is generally a sign of reduced demand. In the public sector, there is no such link, and indeed in some cases, less revenue means higher demand for services.
The services still need to be provided.
Funny though, that a number of years ago when the economy was going full tilt, and there was very little demand for some services, that expenditure in those areas still increased.
FAS is an obvious example. Oh God what an example. The Social Welfare system, and it's administration was never rationalised and/or modernised.
A number of the semi-states that my company did work are only now implementing the moderisation they could and should have been implementing during the boom.
More an observation to your observation than anything else. I guess that's just the way life works?
Or increased competition; the market working so that supply equals demand. This drives down costs, providing better value to the customer.
It can also be that while demand stays the same consumers of the product or service may have less money to pay for it. This means that they become more price sensitive and seek lower prices, as has happened with supermarkets. Now that I think of it the same is happening in the public sector; there’s not as much money around to pay for the services so the service providers have to find a way of providing them for less money. Perfect. Thanks.