# Interesting data on who gets paid what in the public service



## Brendan Burgess

From yesterday's Indo. Can't find it online




These are basic salaries. Many get allowances e.g. Teachers get

Supervision and substitution allowance
Acting up allowance
Gaeltacht allowance
Teaching through Irish allowance
The Bus Eireann driver's average annual earnings are €45,555 which include overtime, shift, Sunday duty and expenses
Brendan


----------



## Purple

The CSO figures on average pay are more informative.
I can't find the up to date figures but as there's been little or no inflation since 2008 [broken link removed] is a good indicator.


----------



## gianni

Brendan Burgess said:


> From yesterday's Indo. Can't find it online
> 
> View attachment 1702
> These are basic salaries. Many get allowances e.g. Teachers get
> 
> Supervision and substitution allowance
> Acting up allowance
> Gaeltacht allowance
> Teaching through Irish allowance
> Brendan



Teachers can also get:

*Appointees Pre 01/02/2012*
1.(a)  (i)H. Dip in Ed./PGDE (Pass) €591
         (ii)Higher Froebel Certificate €591

(b)      (i)H.Dip in Ed. / PGDE (1st or 2nd Hons) €1,236
          (ii)Ard Teastas Gaeilge €1,236

(c) Primary Degree (Pass) €1,842

(d) Masters Degree by thesis or exam (Pass) €4,918

(e) Primary Degree (1st, 2nd or 3rd Hons) €4,918

(f) Master Degree (1st or 2nd Hons) €5,496

(g) Doctors Degree €6,140

(One would assume, at a minimum that all teachers have a primary degree and a HDip in Education.)


----------



## Páid

Gianni just to be clear, those are allowances for Secondary School Teachers.


----------



## gianni

Páid said:


> Gianni just to be clear, those are allowances for Secondary School Teachers.



That's correct. Apologies, I thought I put that in the post.
Details are taken from ASTI website.


----------



## Firefly

gianni said:


> (c) Primary Degree (Pass) €1,842



Only in Ireland would a teacher get extra money for a Pass degree. In most other countries they wouldn't be hired in the first place..

So a 2nd class degree plus a 2nd class masters works out at 10k a year extra...


----------



## gianni

gianni said:


> That's correct. Apologies, I thought I put that in the post.
> Details are taken from ASTI website.



Although, as the INTO website would suggest, the academic allowances are the same.

Also, not sure if a teacher would qualify for a primary degree and masters degree allowance. I would think that you get the allowance equal to your highest educational attainment ?


----------



## Protocol

Typically teachers get two academic allowances;

(1) degree
(2) postgrad

*Note that allowances have been abolished for new entrants.*


----------



## Firefly

Protocol said:


> Typically teachers get two academic allowances;
> 
> (1) degree
> (2) postgrad



I would ask why are these allowances in the first place. Surely a degree is a basic minimum requirement for teaching?


----------



## gianni

[


Protocol said:


> Typically teachers get two academic allowances;
> 
> (1) degree
> (2) postgrad
> 
> *Note that allowances have been abolished for new entrants.*



Where does the H/Dip (and it's allowance) fit into this ?


----------



## Protocol

*Academic Allowances*
Either of the allowances (a) or (b) may be held together with any one of the allowances (c) to (g).


----------



## Purple

gianni said:


> (One would assume, at a minimum that all teachers have a primary degree and a HDip in Education.)





Firefly said:


> I would ask why are these allowances in the first place. Surely a degree is a basic minimum requirement for teaching?


Why would a wood working, tech-drawing, home economics or metal work teacher need a degree?
Anyone with a Senior Trades qualification can do a two year H-Dip and become a teacher.
The Allowances are a nonsense though. If a teacher has a Masters in the subject they are teaching then yes, maybe pay them extra but paying extra for having the minimum requirement to teach, a Higher Diploma in teaching, is laughable.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Maybe its just me but ?

Degrees are so last century , in general they mean people went to school longer ,not that they are much better at a given job v 4 years hands on.
Degrees seem to be last centuries leaving cert.
By all means do H-Dip type programmes to hone teaching type skills, as that qualification is a minimum competency test, but I just can,t see justification for the plethora of allowances / posts of responsibility etc.Probably they arose to give sideway payments.

I think by teachers itemizing and getting paid for each bit of work they have ended up in danger of  losing  (professionalism) and risk retreating into  a narrow defined version of their job...
I don,t think this is good ?

They seem by general measures to be quite well paid.


----------



## elcato

Gerry Canning said:


> Degrees seem to be last centuries leaving cert.


Yep. Asked my niece last year when she graduated when do you expect to start work and was told that unless you have a masters no-one will give you a job outside retail. The problem now is that the amount of rubbish degrees out there where people are choosing something they'd 'like to do' rather than something practical that will get a job at the end of it i.e. computer science, engineering and accounting or medicine. The unis have diluted degrees by having courses on hamster feeding and ancient water history which are just basically money spinners for the lecturers so they can make up their fat salaries. Amazeballs that they still fall for this tripe but there ya go.


----------



## jjm

Firefly I would sooner have a teacher with passion for there Job With a pass  than a teacher who got a masters just to earn Higher Salary,
We need to raise New Entrants wages In the public service .Ireland  high cost of Living on younger people need to be looked at.The older you are in Ireland the less cost you have


----------



## Páid

Purple said:


> Why would a wood working, tech-drawing, home economics or metal work teacher need a degree?
> Anyone with a Senior Trades qualification can do a two year H-Dip and become a teacher.
> The Allowances are a nonsense though. If a teacher has a Masters in the subject they are teaching then yes, maybe pay them extra but paying extra for having the minimum requirement to teach, a Higher Diploma in teaching, is laughable.



Are you sure they are getting the allowance for their primary degree?

What about teachers who on top of their primary degree, pursue degrees/masters in psychology, counselling, business, computing, economics, art, music, etc. in order to better teach their students?


----------



## Protocol

I suspect the academic allowances are a legacy from a time when you didn't necessarily need these qualifications to be a teacher.


----------



## cremeegg

jjm2016 said:


> We need to raise New Entrants wages In the public service.



There are many qualified applicants for every teaching job, over a hundred applicants for every garda job. We clearly do not need to raise their salaries to recruit people. If you think it would be nice for them to have a bit more, good for you, but I don't want to have to pay for it.

There are problems recruiting nurses, this needs to be rectified, but the issue seems to have more to do with working conditions than with salary levels.


----------



## Purple

Páid said:


> What about teachers who on top of their primary degree, pursue degrees/masters in psychology, counselling, business, computing, economics, art, music, etc. in order to better teach their students?


The problem is that while people should get paid more for being better at their job the slip side is that they should be sacked if they are rubbish at their job. As teachers and their unions never allow rubbish teachers to be removed it is unfair that they get rewarded for being potentially better (a masters does not mean they will be better, it just means they should be better). They want it both ways; carrot but no stick. That's not how things work in the real world.


----------



## Páid

Protocol said:


> I suspect the academic allowances are a legacy from a time when you didn't necessarily need these qualifications to be a teacher.


I agree. The academic allowances are for those teachers who may have more than just a primary degree when they start teaching and for teachers who continually educate themselves in order to remain current.



Purple said:


> The problem is that while people should get paid more for being better at their job the slip side is that they should be sacked if they are rubbish at their job. As teachers and their unions never allow rubbish teachers to be removed it is unfair that they get rewarded for being potentially better (a masters does not mean they will be better, it just means they should be better). They want it both ways; carrot but no stick. That's not how things work in the real world.


This thread is on the subject of remuneration, not the performance of a small percentage of teachers who don't meet your "real world" standard.


----------



## noproblem

Brendan Burgess said:


> From yesterday's Indo. Can't find it online
> 
> View attachment 1702
> These are basic salaries. Many get allowances e.g. Teachers get
> 
> Supervision and substitution allowance
> Acting up allowance
> Gaeltacht allowance
> Teaching through Irish allowance
> Brendan


----------



## Protocol

jjm2016 said:


> Firefly I would sooner have a teacher with passion for there Job With a pass  than a teacher who got a masters just to earn Higher Salary,
> We need to raise New Entrants wages In the public service .Ireland  high cost of Living on younger people need to be looked at.The older you are in Ireland the less cost you have



We need to reduce the costs of living, then, especially housing costs.


----------



## noproblem

Páid said:


> I agree. The academic allowances are for those teachers who may have more than just a primary degree when they start teaching and for teachers who continually educate themselves in order to remain current.
> 
> 
> This thread is on the subject of remuneration, not the performance of a small percentage of teachers who don't meet your "real world" standard.



Lots of differing opinions on teachers remuneration, etc, but not nice to see the criticism teachers get with regard to their pay. I'm no teacher and don't think I could ever be capable of performing their work with the amount of paperwork, rules, schedules, parental substitution , bullying, supervision, changing curriculums, etc, etc, that happens today. On the other hand, if teachers only did what they were paid for and in doing so fully carried out their duties, but didn't do one other thing outside of what's legally expected, then I feel we would be a hell lot more appreciative of what it is they really do in today's world. I personally have huge respect for the profession, they're by and large fantastic people who really go out of their way to help others, but of course that's all forgotten about by people who conveniently think school ends when classes end.


----------



## Purple

Páid said:


> This thread is on the subject of remuneration, not the performance of a small percentage of teachers who don't meet your "real world" standard.


Do you think that all teachers are teaching at or above the required standard and quality? If not do you think there should be a real mechanism for getting rid of them since teaching is such an important job (and I believe it is)?
If no mechanism is in place and while no teacher is ever measured to see if they are in fact delivering good quality teaching why do you contend that only a small percentage of teachers are no good?
One in six of us are functionally illiterate and 25% have basic numeracy problems. We are 15th out of 26 in the OECD rankings and slipping. We have no University in the top 200 in any rankings that matter. That's hardly a world class education system and certainly doesn't show that we have anything other an average of than C- level teachers. If I worked in the Education sector/profession/industry I wouldn't be patting myself on the back and if I worked hard and was good at my job I certainly wouldn't want to be judged by the lowest common denominator as your overpaid representatives so vociferously insist happens.


----------



## Purple

noproblem said:


> Lots of differing opinions on teachers remuneration, etc, but not nice to see the criticism teachers get with regard to their pay. I'm no teacher and don't think I could ever be capable of performing their work with the amount of paperwork, rules, schedules, parental substitution , bullying, supervision, changing curriculums, etc, etc, that happens today. On the other hand, if teachers only did what they were paid for and in doing so fully carried out their duties, but didn't do one other thing outside of what's legally expected, then I feel we would be a hell lot more appreciative of what it is they really do in today's world. I personally have huge respect for the profession, they're by and large fantastic people who really go out of their way to help others, but of course that's all forgotten about by people who conveniently think school ends when classes end.


 And yet we are 15th our of 26 in the OECD education rankings and falling. Why not look at the facts and judge the sector accordingly. It is possible that they are all great people but are they any good at their job or is what they are being asked to deliver fit for purpose?


----------



## Páid

This thread is about teacher pay (among others), not performance. You both seems to be suggesting that teachers are to blame for the rankings and there are no other factors involved. That's very shortsighted to say the least. And it still has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## Deiseblue

cremeegg said:


> There are many qualified applicants for every teaching job, over a hundred applicants for every garda job. We clearly do not need to raise their salaries to recruit people. If you think it would be nice for them to have a bit more, good for you, but I don't want to have to pay for it.
> 
> There are problems recruiting nurses, this needs to be rectified, but the issue seems to have more to do with working conditions than with salary levels.



In truth Cremeegg , that boat has already sailed.
The Labour Court in it's impartial wisdom has recommended quite substantial improvements to pay & terms & conditions for the Gardai which may or may not solve pro tem the IR difficulties in that organisation.
The knock on effect is that despite the current minority Goverment's defence of the Lansdowne Road Agreement it does appear that such Agreement has been holed below the waterline.
The Government may hold matters together by bringing forward the €2000 pay restoration figure due to PS employees earning under €65000, personally I feel this may not be enough.


----------



## Purple

Páid said:


> This thread is about teacher pay (among others), not performance.


 There should always be a link between pay and performance.



Páid said:


> You both seems to be suggesting that teachers are to blame for the rankings and there are no other factors involved. That's very shortsighted to say the least. And it still has nothing to do with this thread.


 I'm suggesting it might be the case but I also asked if what they were being asked to deliver was fit for purpose. Of course if it isn't the teachers Unions will block any improvement, just as they have with the junior cert.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> In truth Cremeegg , that boat has already sailed.
> The Labour Court in it's impartial wisdom has recommended quite substantial improvements to pay & terms & conditions for the Gardai which may or may not solve pro tem the IR difficulties in that organisation.
> The knock on effect is that despite the current minority Goverment's defence of the Lansdowne Road Agreement it does appear that such Agreement has been holed below the waterline.
> The Government may hold matters together by bringing forward the €2000 pay restoration figure due to PS employees earning under €65000, personally I feel this may not be enough.


...and they seem to be ok with the cuts in services to people who really need those services in order to fund their pay increases. Charming.


----------



## jjm

cremeegg Re post 18, You are paying a high price because New Entrants Wages were  low.  It  has not sank in yet . Taking Allowances off New Garda Entrants on low pay  and Still paying it to well paid higher up members Was the reason we finished up giving all Garda a pay increase .All garda should be well paid on a flatter scale.Strange we want garda to retire after 30 years .They must be going down hill and getting paid at the top of the scale. Yet young Garda are paid on the lower end have we the scales the wrong way around. The are all paid to do a good Job any I have ever got anything to do with young or old do a good Job hard to see why there should be such a gap in there pay scales,


----------



## noproblem

News is just breaking that the goverment have invited the unions to talks on post LRA. Sorry, I don't have the link, just a phone call from someone very reliable who is in the know.


----------



## cremeegg

jjm2016 said:


> cremeegg Re post 18, You are paying a high price because New Entrants Wages were  low.  It  has not sank in yet . Taking Allowances off New Garda Entrants on low pay  and Still paying it to well paid higher up members Was the reason we finished up giving all Garda a pay increase .All garda should be well paid on a flatter scale.Strange we want garda to retire after 30 years .They must be going down hill and getting paid at the top of the scale. Yet young Garda are paid on the lower end have we the scales the wrong way around. The are all paid to do a good Job any I have ever got anything to do with young or old do a good Job hard to see why there should be such a gap in there pay scales,



I couldn't agree more. And it applies in teaching as well. The concept of increments is a joke.


----------



## Sanparom

Let us be clear here... I am a teacher and I don't get any 'teaching through Irish', 'Gaeltacht' or any of those other allowances posted by Brendan at the start of the thread. It is only a small number of teachers who get them. Of course this turned into a teacher-bashing thread, making it out that we are on inflated salaries. We're not. I'm not even going to comment on the added extras other public sector workers get because I am respectful of ALL workers. 

It is funny how the people who think they know everything about being a teacher are not teachers. Not a clue.


----------



## Purple

Sanparom said:


> I'm not even going to comment on the added extras other public sector workers get because I am respectful of ALL workers.


Who do you categorise as a worker?


----------



## PGF2016

Sanparom said:


> I am respectful of ALL workers.


Respect should be earned not given by default. 

How are teachers paid compared in Ireland compared to other countries? If they are paid more they should do more and get better results. If they are paid less then we should aim to match the EU on pay but also productivity.

My fear is that they are paid more while having one of the shortest school years. I'd like to be corrected on that.


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> In truth Cremeegg , that boat has already sailed.
> The Labour Court in it's impartial wisdom has recommended quite substantial improvements to pay & terms & conditions for the Gardai which may or may not solve pro tem the IR difficulties in that organisation.
> The knock on effect is that despite the current minority Goverment's defence of the Lansdowne Road Agreement it does appear that such Agreement has been holed below the waterline.
> The Government may hold matters together by bringing forward the €2000 pay restoration figure due to PS employees earning under €65000, personally I feel this may not be enough.



Hi Deise,

Hope all that sun's not going to your head!

Given that we cannot borrow any more and cannot print our own money and are already running a deficit, we have 2 options to fund these increases - either tax increases or taking money from elsewhere. Would you mind outlining your stance on how these pay rises should be funded?


----------



## Deiseblue

According to the OECD report - Education at a glance 2016 ( available online ) teaching hours in Ireland are much longer , 915 per year at primary level compared to the average of 776 across the OECD & 735 hours at upper secondary level compared to 644.
The report said pay for teachers starting out is lower than the OECD average but rises significantly above it after 15 years service however ASTI point out that up to one half of second level teachers under 35 work less than full hours.
Expenditure on education in Ireland is down by 7% since 2008 while it rose by 8% across the OECD.
Also we have significantly larger class sizes - 25 pupils per class at primary level - EU average 20 , third level 20 compared to EU average of 16 - courtesy of 2015 report.


----------



## Purple

[broken link removed] shows average pay levels from 2000 to 2008. It is strange that there is no more up to date data but things have not changed greatly since 2008. The average increase was 56% and inflation over the same period was 36%.
The lowest increase was prison officers at 26% but that was due to roster changes as overtime was being severely abused. The largest gains were in 3rd level with an average increase of just under 70% (is this a reason for the gap in funding and fee increases at third level?). Average pay at primary level was €46,124. Average pay at second level was €56,056. This of course does not include the value of the contributions which would be necessary to fund their pension. With a working life of 40 years and assuming the employee is paying full PRSI, with no lump sum payment the employee would have to pay 20% of their income to fund their pension. That means the real value of the package is closer to €55,000 for primary teachers and €67,000 for second level teachers. I'm not suggesting they are earning too much or that they are not worth it. I don't know enough to form an opinion either way. I am suggesting that we should have a discussion based on the real figures. 

If anyone can give a more comprehensive analysis taking any cuts  and the pension levy into account that would be great.

I also think we should have a less emotive discussion nationally about the quality of the outcomes from our education system. It is a nonsense to suggest that we have a world class education system. It is also a nonsense to blame all shortcomings on teachers.


----------



## muinteoir

I was going to ignore this thread but I had to add my comment after what I’d read. Punishing teachers by withholding pay because the children don’t do well in a test is like withdrawing children’s allowance from parents if the children don’t behave themselves in public. There is a lot more to a child’s education than exams.

It would be worth looking at what has happened to education in other countries and compare it with our own situation.

If you look at the PISA scores and compare Finland and the UK you will see why we should be looking at what has worked in Finland. Finland is ranked 5th (Subjects tested: Reading, Maths and Science). The UK is ranked 26th. Ireland is between them in 14th place.

There is a vast difference between how teachers in Finland and teachers in the UK are treated. First of all teachers in Finland are respected. From speaking to a lot of teachers from the UK they are not. Teachers in Finland are well paid. Teachers in the UK are not. Teachers in Finland are given autonomy. Teachers in the UK are not. Teachers in Finland are not held responsible for children’s performance. In fact Finland does not use standardised testing at all. Teachers in the UK assess the children at least 3 times a year (Writing, Reading & Maths). This testing is used to track the “progress” of the children. They are expected to make a certain amount of progress each term/year. This puts a huge amount of pressure on the children and the teachers. As well as that there is a de facto payments by results system in the UK and that clearly has done nothing but create more stress for teachers.

Unless we want to end up with a broken education system like they have the UK we should behave more as the Fins do. It is clear that the system in the UK is broken. Not alone have their results been poor there has been a huge exodus from teaching. However, Finland has no such problem.

One last comment I should add. Not everyone who does well in the Leaving Cert is cut out to be a teacher. Teachers need to be kind, compassionate, approachable, fair, diligent, curious, responsible, supportive, capable and fun. They have to be good at and interested in all the subjects taught on the primary curriculum. They have to be able to entertain, protect, inspire, cajole, punish, etc. Teachers are in loco parentis. I have never come across a teacher who does not take this role seriously. They consider the children in their class to be their responsibility, “their children” for the time that they are working with them. They will do whatever they can to help those children succeed. There are many reasons that there are adults who are functionally illiterate. I’ve worked with some in the past. Some said they had to leave school early to support their families. Others had learning difficulties which would have been addressed if there was a proper Learning Support system in place at the time. That has been rectified by the Department. At the time these people would have been in school there were either no supports or they were very limited. (Class sizes have not been reduced significantly. You could easily have a class of 30 or more. The support teachers are counted when the pupil teacher ratios are being discussed.)

I feel very strongly that we should stop blaming teachers for something that is beyond their control.

Oh and just in case anyone is under the impression that I am living in the lap of luxury I am not. I bought a modest house in a rough housing estate because that was all I could afford. I don’t go off on expensive foreign holidays. I don’t have a flash car. My salary is basically the same as it was 12 years ago. Come to think of it, I’m not sure what I’m doing here. I think I should look into getting a job in Finland!


----------



## Deiseblue

Firefly said:


> Hi Deise,
> 
> Hope all that sun's not going to your head!
> 
> Given that we cannot borrow any more and cannot print our own money and are already running a deficit, we have 2 options to fund these increases - either tax increases or taking money from elsewhere. Would you mind outlining your stance on how these pay rises should be funded?



Firefly , back in Ireland for December & then off again .

I have seen nothing to suggest that we cannot continue to borrow more than was intended even if the Government wishes to avoid that eventuality .
I think that Jack O'Connors point that the 9% VAT rate enjoyed by the Tourist industry should revert to the previous rate of 13.5% now that such industry has obviously recovered given that 2016 was the best year ever for Irish tourism breaking all previous records , it should be noted that the ESRI has also questioned the need to retain the 9% rate.
Such a mooted increase would raise €600 million a year.
It's also encouraging to see the Revenue raising their game against rampant tax evasion & are preparing for a major clampdown on offshore tax evasion as the Revenue will soon have access to oversea accounts held by Irish Tax payers - should be interesting to say the least.
Hopefully Mr. Noonan's targeting of vulture funds will also produce dividends.
Then we have the putative sale of AIB & the State's interest in BOI.
With unemployment down to 7.7% the knock on effect is an increase in tax revenues & a decrease in unemployment assistance.


----------



## valery

Does the OECD report compare basic salaries, or are allowances included?


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> I have seen nothing to suggest that we cannot continue to borrow more than was intended even if the Government wishes to avoid that eventuality .



TheBigShort has agreed with me previously in this thread that employers should not borrow just to give people a pay rise. Do you think they should?


----------



## ashambles

muinteoir said:


> we should behave more as the Fins do.



The Finnish school year is up to 190 days I believe? Which probably isn't even that long by European standards. How about we behave more like the Finns in that way, probably one of the most important ways?

The Irish school year is 167 days, minus a few days here and there for strikes, elections etc..

The single biggest flaw with the Irish system is that school year, compressing everything into fewer days means you've stressed teachers who've little time to prepare, stressed students overloaded with work. You've stressed timetables where schools need to recruit to fill for a few hours here and there as they simply can't timetable their existing teachers into the hours they'd need.

Our secondary school year is a disaster, and sadly will never be fixed.


----------



## Deiseblue

Firefly said:


> TheBigShort has agreed with me previously in this thread that employer should not borrow just to give people a pay rise. Do you think they should?



Do you think the VAT rate applicable to the tourism industry should revert to 13.5% now that that industry is flourishing again ?

Your comment was that the State "cannot borrow anymore " - that is incorrect.

The alternatives outlined in my post were in answer to your query as to how any pay rises would be funded however if the Government conclude that additional borrowings are required to head off an IR disaster then that is their call , I prefer my course of action.


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> Do you think the VAT rate applicable to the tourism industry should revert to 13.5% now that that industry is flourishing again ?
> 
> Your comment was that the State "cannot borrow anymore " - that is incorrect.
> 
> The alternatives outlined in my post were in answer to your query as to how any pay rises would be funded however if the Government conclude that additional borrowings are required to head off an IR disaster then that is their call , I prefer my course of action.



OK, I didn't follow, I thought you were advocating that we just borrow for pay increases. Well, if the money does need to come from somewhere then that needs to be explored. The problem with "taking" the money from the tourist industry is that if wage increases are applied it is (as we know) extremely difficult to reduce them again if need be.


----------



## Firefly

muinteoir said:


> If you look at the PISA scores and compare Finland and the UK you will see why we should be looking at what has worked in Finland. Finland is ranked 5th (Subjects tested: Reading, Maths and Science). The UK is ranked 26th. Ireland is between them in 14th place.



Finland is doing well alright, but why focus on a country coming fifth? Why not look at those even higher up such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan?


----------



## jjm

Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul .Hell bent on driving as many lower paid jobs out of the country as we can.Tourism brings new money into I_reland_


----------



## Purple

muinteoir said:


> I was going to ignore this thread but I had to add my comment after what I’d read. Punishing teachers by withholding pay because the children don’t do well in a test is like withdrawing children’s allowance from parents if the children don’t behave themselves in public. There is a lot more to a child’s education than exams.
> 
> It would be worth looking at what has happened to education in other countries and compare it with our own situation.
> 
> If you look at the PISA scores and compare Finland and the UK you will see why we should be looking at what has worked in Finland. Finland is ranked 5th (Subjects tested: Reading, Maths and Science). The UK is ranked 26th. Ireland is between them in 14th place.
> 
> There is a vast difference between how teachers in Finland and teachers in the UK are treated. First of all teachers in Finland are respected. From speaking to a lot of teachers from the UK they are not. Teachers in Finland are well paid. Teachers in the UK are not. Teachers in Finland are given autonomy. Teachers in the UK are not. Teachers in Finland are not held responsible for children’s performance. In fact Finland does not use standardised testing at all. Teachers in the UK assess the children at least 3 times a year (Writing, Reading & Maths). This testing is used to track the “progress” of the children. They are expected to make a certain amount of progress each term/year. This puts a huge amount of pressure on the children and the teachers. As well as that there is a de facto payments by results system in the UK and that clearly has done nothing but create more stress for teachers.
> 
> Unless we want to end up with a broken education system like they have the UK we should behave more as the Fins do. It is clear that the system in the UK is broken. Not alone have their results been poor there has been a huge exodus from teaching. However, Finland has no such problem.
> 
> One last comment I should add. Not everyone who does well in the Leaving Cert is cut out to be a teacher. Teachers need to be kind, compassionate, approachable, fair, diligent, curious, responsible, supportive, capable and fun. They have to be good at and interested in all the subjects taught on the primary curriculum. They have to be able to entertain, protect, inspire, cajole, punish, etc. Teachers are in loco parentis. I have never come across a teacher who does not take this role seriously. They consider the children in their class to be their responsibility, “their children” for the time that they are working with them. They will do whatever they can to help those children succeed. There are many reasons that there are adults who are functionally illiterate. I’ve worked with some in the past. Some said they had to leave school early to support their families. Others had learning difficulties which would have been addressed if there was a proper Learning Support system in place at the time. That has been rectified by the Department. At the time these people would have been in school there were either no supports or they were very limited. (Class sizes have not been reduced significantly. You could easily have a class of 30 or more. The support teachers are counted when the pupil teacher ratios are being discussed.)
> 
> I feel very strongly that we should stop blaming teachers for something that is beyond their control.
> 
> Oh and just in case anyone is under the impression that I am living in the lap of luxury I am not. I bought a modest house in a rough housing estate because that was all I could afford. I don’t go off on expensive foreign holidays. I don’t have a flash car. My salary is basically the same as it was 12 years ago. Come to think of it, I’m not sure what I’m doing here. I think I should look into getting a job in Finland!


Very good post.
Have you any opinions or insights on what the Finnish are doing right?
I want us to have a world class education system. I believe that the majority of teachers are capable of delivering a world class education. What are we doing wrong? Why are we not in the top 5 in the world and what would it take to get us there?


----------



## Marion

Great discussion.

It might be helpful Purple if we had a clear understanding and clear definition of what you believe is a "World class education system".  What does that even mean?

You clearly believe that teachers are capable of delivering this. Educate the AAM readership. I'm excited to know what I could be doing to achieve this.

So what do you believe is wrong? What are we not doing right? Why do you believe we are not in the top 5 in The world. What do you think we as a country should be doing to achieve this?

Disappointed that my honours Higher Diploma in Education is "Laughable".  I was really proud of it especially since I achieved it at a time when Honours meant the top 5% and not almost everybody in the class achieving an honours accolade. But hey, I'm over it now.

Anyhow, looking forward to your inspired thinking on your understanding of a world class education system.

Regards


Marion


----------



## noproblem

Too much snobbery and elitism by certain people here on the merits, or not, of Degree, Diploma, Doctorate, pass, honours, etc. There are standards one attains to enter the teaching profession, some people with the perceived lesser one's can often be fantastic teachers. Might be an idea to dampen some of the attitudes toward particular graduates.


----------



## Marion

Also, why the major interest in teachers only in this thread?

Doctors and judges seem to be missing from the table in the initial post.

Marion


----------



## jjm

Its all about doing your best with what you have .There are people on here  who thought the were world class full of snobbery and elitism Until the market caught up with  them.


----------



## orka

Marion said:


> Disappointed that my honours Higher Diploma in Education is "Laughable".  I was really proud of it especially since I achieved it at a time when Honours meant the top 5% and not almost everybody in the class achieving an honours accolade.


That's an interesting point.  The scales were created when it was a special achievement to get an honours degree or a masters degree - and the allowances were to attract the best and brightest into teaching.  As you say, honours is pretty standard now and a much higher percentage of students go on to do masters degrees so it's nearly a basic entry requirement.  I'm not sure an allowance that pretty much all new entrants are eligible for is what the original intention was.


----------



## Marion

I guess times are constantly changing.

Finland expects all teachers to have a masters degree.

Teachers to get a job now in Ireland are expected to have a masters degree at second level (Basic degree won't get you in most doors unless you know somebody)  and a PGDE (2 year diploma  in education.))

In Ireland we give (gave) allowances for educational attainment, other countries give bonuses and overtime.

It's really very difficult to compare.

If a masters degree now is the equivalent of a basic degree then , I would have no difficulty in paying extra for that extra qualification. A masters will cost in the region of €10,000 plus a year's training.

I'm pretty sure my taxes are paying for worse!

As Protocol mentioned only one degree allowance is allowed together with one diploma allowance.

Any uptake on doctors, judges?

Marion


----------



## Andy836

Doctors don't have 4 months off a year...


----------



## ashambles

Marion said:


> I guess times are constantly changing.
> 
> Finland expects all teachers to have a masters degree.
> ...
> 
> A masters will cost in the region of €10,000 plus a year's training.
> I'm pretty sure my taxes are paying for worse!


Finland also expect more than 167 days work out of their teachers. Our teachers will never go to a European style school year and as a result our teaching will always be worse.

The masters where given is an annual allowance and pensionable, it could cost 200-300k over a career.  No doubt we spend our taxes on worse - but this is pretty bad. I'd have zero problem with teachers being refunded the costs of any masters course.

If any company I worked offered 5k p.a. automatically for getting a masters we'd all have been off to pick up one of those new interesting sounding but mostly useless taught masters that our colleges are providing. I thought I heard they cost around 4k for a 2 year course typically - maybe it's 8k?

I assume there's some rules on the types of masters however, perhaps taught masters aren't suitable?


----------



## Marion

Our teaching will always be worse than what?


Marion


----------



## jjm

Deiseblue post no 44.Do you think the vat rate appicable to the tourism  industry should revert to 13.5 % now that the industry is flourishing  is helping to bring in more tax so we  have more money to provide better public services along with bringing new wealth into Ireland.Talk about killing the golden goose.Any short term gain could finish going into a Black hole .


----------



## Marion

You are perfectly correct.

No they don't but they get lots of overtime and lots of time on presentations abroad.

I'm acquainted with many doctors. They work hard. As I do. I'd love paid overtime. 

Totally envious. 

Marion


----------



## Deiseblue

jjm2016 said:


> Deiseblue post no 44.Do you think the vat rate appicable to the tourism  industry should revert to 13.5 % now that the industry is flourishing  is helping to bring in more tax so we  have more money to provide better public services along with bringing new wealth into Ireland.Talk about killing the golden goose.Any short term gain could finish going into a Black hole .



Absolutely, the 9% rate was introduced in 2011 to aid the tourist industry during challenging times and was always considered a stop gap measure  and now that last year produced the best tourism figures surpassing all previous records it's time to revert to the still favourable 13.5% rate.


----------



## jjm

I suspect we are very near the top if you look at how Irish people do when the enter the workforce. We need to be teaching pupils fluent European languages  most Germans under 40 can speak English fluently .USA Foreign direct investment no longer see Ireland as there first location Because we speak English they can set up in most of Europe and  Hire people who can speak  fluent English along The languages the will be trading in .


----------



## Marion

Agree jjm2016

We need teachers in many foreign languages.

We need to start language training for business  in primary school. Chinese might not be a bad start.


Marion


----------



## Marion

Bring in a Chinese specialist. It's highly unlikely the DES will have properly trained teachers.

Marion


----------



## jjm

Deiseblue I hear unions and others on about increasing Corporation tax and other taxes We are loosing our Competitiveness We could be in for a shock when we deliver the bowl of shamrock to the President He may have news for us.


----------



## jjm

Marion 
You are on the Button .We need to be training lots of new teachers to teach Business languages urgently.Most native German business people under 40  insist on using English to conduct business in Ireland.


----------



## Marion

Jim2016

Being on the button and  the DES recognising reality are very different.

The DES will be very slow to accept change. A number of reports will need to be written and accepted to recognise this.

Marion


----------



## jjm

Marion
It is the private sector who are sleep walking at present the have taken the eye off the ball.Look over on cut the dole forum we have lots of our own Donald hanging around if the were not over hear they would sprouting off over there.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Marion said:


> Agree jjm2016
> 
> We need teachers in many foreign languages.
> 
> Is Irish one of them? Maybe not!
> 
> We need to start language training for business  in primary school. Chinese might not be a bad start.
> 
> 
> Marion



That and the use of technology.


----------



## Firefly

Sophrosyne said:


> That and the use of technology.



Yip, there should be a huge emphasis on STEM.


----------



## Purple

Marion said:


> It might be helpful Purple if we had a clear understanding and clear definition of what you believe is a "World class education system". What does that even mean?



That’s the question I am asking.

Other posters have brought up Finland and their ranking relative to ours. I have to rely on the experts who compile these lists and work on the assumption that they are based on data rather than an arbitrary opinion. I have been told many times, often by teachers, that we have a world class education system. As a developed country with a reasonably homogeneous population and a single spoken language I don’t see why being ranked 15th for maths and science is something to shout about. I don’t think not having a single University in the top 200 in the world makes us world class.

My only experience is in engineering trades where we are very far behind the UK and the mainland in how we train apprentices and in engineering where Irish mechanical engineers would rank, in my experience, as “kind of okay” but nothing special. 




Marion said:


> You clearly believe that teachers are capable of delivering this. Educate the AAM readership. I'm excited to know what I could be doing to achieve this.


 Why are you asking me? You are the teacher. Do you believe that we have a world class education system? If not, as someone with experience in the area, what would you do to improve things? Or is it okay to just being okay?




Marion said:


> So what do you believe is wrong? What are we not doing right? Why do you believe we are not in the top 5 in The world. What do you think we as a country should be doing to achieve this?


 It’s not me who doesn’t believe we are in the top 5. It’s the OECD. Do you think they are wrong?

We have very high levels of inter-generational literacy problems with [broken link removed]. Those are the outcomes from our education system. I think we can do better. My feeling is that it’s not down to the quality of the teachers as most I encounter seem to be good at their job. I am surprised and disappointed that teachers can’t come up with any suggestions to improve things and seem to  be happy with our educational outcomes and, more particularly, our educational structures. The only issue they seem to really be interested in, or at least the one that always takes precedent, is how much they get paid.




Marion said:


> Disappointed that my honours Higher Diploma in Education is "Laughable".  I was really proud of it especially since I achieved it at a time when Honours meant the top 5% and not almost everybody in the class achieving an honours accolade. But hey, I'm over it now.


 I never said it was laughable. I think it’s something to be proud of. I don’t necessarily think it makes someone a better teacher though. The older I get the less link I see between the educational level of people  and their skills and competence. I suppose I’m an advocate of lifelong learning.




Marion said:


> Anyhow, looking forward to your inspired thinking on your understanding of a world class education system.


 Sorry to disappoint. I was looking for suggestions from others, particularly those in the education sector, as to whether they think we can and should do better. Particularly in the context of the structure of our education system but it seems I’m not allowed to ask those questions and any questioning of our “world class” education system and those who work within it will be met with petty sarcasm.


I speak as someone who, in the early 1980’s went through primary school with undiagnosed dyslexia and dyspraxia and went to school every day full of fear, who was thrown to the ground and kicked repeatedly in the kidneys by my teacher so forcefully I urinated blood afterwards, who was so frightened of my teacher that I wet myself when I was 9 years old. That man ended up as a school principle. I can say without equivocation that despite the near death of a child, the deaths of close family members and a marriage break up nothing I have experienced since then was as bad as the two years in primary school when he was my teacher.

He was one of the “dedicated and professional” teachers. He was protected by his union and his fellow teachers. Until you and your fellow teachers actively move to remove people like him from your “profession” he is and will remain the bar at which you set your standards.


I see my two sons going through the education system now. Both have high IQ’s but some learning difficulties. Things seem to be much better now but they are still far from perfect. There is a defensive group think from teachers which brooks no criticism, a myopic view bourn of people who have spend their entire lives in schools as either pupils of teachers and have a siege mentality. In that you do yourselves and those in your care a disservice.




Andy836 said:


> Doctors don't have 4 months off a year...


 They earn vastly more than teachers and, as a group, deliver worse outcomes than their counterparts in education.  70% of GP’s are women and yet the majority of GP hours are worked by male GP’s. That tells us that they are so over paid that they can work a short week and still earn a very good living. Consultants spent 14 years blocking very necessary reforms to their contracts despite the impact it had in patient care. I wouldn’t hold up doctors or indeed nurses as paragons of selfless virtue.


Why is it unacceptable to question the efficiency, the value for money that we get from out state employees? This seems to be particularly the case with so called front line staff. This is a republic; we are all meant to be equal with no group seen as inherently more virtuous than another. We used to view priests that way. Have we learned nothing? Doctors and teachers and lawyers and other “professionals” are no more or less virtuous than plumbers or farmers or truck drivers or bin men/women.


----------



## ashambles

_Finland also expect more than 167 days work out of their teachers. Our teachers will never go to a European style school year and as a result our teaching will always be worse._



Marion said:


> Our teaching will always be worse than what?Marion


Apologies for the confusing sentence, I meant "worse than European countries such as Finland". As it happens I believe the only OECD country with a comparable school year to us is Mexico.

So currently we're more Mexican that Finnish. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## Purple

ashambles said:


> As it happens I believe the only OECD country with a comparable school year to us is Mexico.
> So currently we're more Mexican that Finnish. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


I think Greece is similar but I'm open to correction.

If the length of the school year is not a problem in the context of educational outcome then leave it alone. My ex-sister in law is a vice principle in a primary school and she believes strongly that there should be a shorter school day and a longer school year.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> If the length of the school year is not a problem in the context of educational outcome then leave it alone. My ex-sister in law is a vice principle in a primary school and she believes strongly that there should be a shorter school day and a longer school year.


I would go along with that. We have three children in primary school and by the time they get home, some days there isn't enough time to get through all their homework and extra curricular activities (music, drama, sport) - they go to bed exhausted and it's all a bit of a rush. I think shorter days but over an extended period would be beneficial to children (and parents!). As you say though Purple, it would be good to get the views of experts (teachers and those studying the area) but also, whilst I am a big supporter of teaching in general, it should be possible to question (and even criticise if warranted) certain things in the current setup without teachers closing ranks.


----------



## jjm

Marion 
Our Present Minister for Education and skills Richard Bruton Previously served as Minister For Jobs Enterprise And Innovation ,I am very Disappointed With Him  in Education I was hoping his Experience as Minister for Jobs Enterprise and Innovation would be used For the Good in His New Department,
He is beginning to look like the Minister for not Recognising reality,


----------



## Deiseblue

ashambles said:


> _Finland also expect more than 167 days work out of their teachers. Our teachers will never go to a European style school year and as a result our teaching will always be worse._
> 
> 
> Apologies for the confusing sentence, I meant "worse than European countries such as Finland". As it happens I believe the only OECD country with a comparable school year to us is Mexico.
> 
> So currently we're more Mexican that Finnish. Not that there's anything wrong with that.



The School year is not set by teachers , the school year is set by the Department of Education, School Management bodies , Unions representing teachers & parents organisations.

All those bodies have never to the best of my knowledge called for or deemed it necessary to change the school year either at primary or secondary level apart from standardising the school year in 2004 , nor have I seen any concerted efforts by either the media or more importantly parents & the National Parents Council to amend the school year .

It should also be noted that not all teachers work a minimum of 167 days , primary teachers work a minimum of 183 days .

Finally as an ex child myself I always looked forward to what appeared to be the infinite vista of the summer unrolling in front of me , I wouldn't like to deprive any child of one day of that .


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> Finally as an ex child myself..



I LOL'd


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> The School year is not set by teachers , the school year is set by the Department of Education, School Management bodies , Unions representing teachers & parents organisations.
> 
> All those bodies have never to the best of my knowledge called for or deemed it necessary to change the school year either at primary or secondary level apart from standardising the school year in 2004 , nor have I seen any concerted efforts by either the media or more importantly parents & the National Parents Council to amend the school year .



If we want to improve our educational outcomes, something has to change. Just because "That's how we've always done it" doesn't mean it's OK or shouldn't be changed..


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Finally as an ex child myself


I find that hard to believe


----------



## thedaddyman

I have 2 children going through Primary school at the minute, It's a large and very good and competent school and until last year, we never had an issue. However last year, our eldest got a teacher who I can only describe as borderline incompetent at best. The impact it had on my eldest, who until then loved school and though teachers were the bees-knees was startling. She lost interest completely and got quite stressed. Despite us meeting with the teacher and the head-mistress the situation never improved. I know of at least a half a dozen parents who did likewise to no effect. Thankfully the teacher in question is now gone abroad for a couple of years and the eldest is back to normal and loving school again.

My point here is that most teachers are patient and caring and brilliant people. I couldn't do their jobs and when I look at the effort some of them make for out of hours activities, frankly some of them should be paid more. I honestly believe our best educators should be rewarded more but the caveat is that it should be a lot easier to sack the incompetent and dangerous ones.

As for the length of time off they get, I have a friend who is a teacher in a small country school. He will spend 2-3 weeks of the summer painting doors and fixing things there because there is no budget to pay someone else to do it. However I do believe that teachers should not force school to close during term time for "training days". they should be scheduled to occur during the school breaks as they are long enough to fit those things in.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Marion
> Our Present Minister for Education and skills Richard Bruton Previously served as Minister For Jobs Enterprise And Innovation ,I am very Disappointed With Him  in Education I was hoping his Experience as Minister for Jobs Enterprise and Innovation would be used For the Good in His New Department,
> He is beginning to look like the Minister for not Recognising reality,


In his previous role he had to deal mainly with private sector export orientated businesses. That means few if any unions. He now had to deal with them all the time. That means he has no chance of really doing anything constructive. I presume he's also looking for the top job after Enda's time so he can't upset the Brethren.


----------



## jjm

Impossible for any  group  to not support any Initiative Richard comes up with


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Impossible for any  group  to not support any Initiative Richard comes up with


Unless it also involves a pay rise the unions won't support it. If it involves more teacher autonomy the unions won't support it. If it involves changes to the school year the unions won't support it. If it involves the enforcement of basic standards the unions won't support it.  etc... etc... etc...

Many teachers would support any or all of the above but, as a public sector friend of mine put it, "there's no bullying like union bullying".


----------



## Marion

Many schools across Europe, Finland, included have dedicated career paths for students - academic or technical at age 16, upper second level. Perhaps this would help to explain why their mechanical skills are better than ours?

Marion


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> I speak as someone who, in the early 1980’s went through primary school with undiagnosed dyslexia and dyspraxia and went to school every day full of fear, who was thrown to the ground and kicked repeatedly in the kidneys by my teacher so forcefully I urinated blood afterwards, who was so frightened of my teacher that I wet myself when I was 9 years old. That man ended up as a school principle. I can say without equivocation that despite the near death of a child, the deaths of close family members and a marriage break up nothing I have experienced since then was as bad as the two years in primary school when he was my teacher.
> 
> He was one of the “dedicated and professional” teachers. He was protected by his union and his fellow teachers. Until you and your fellow teachers actively move to remove people like him from your “profession” he is and will remain the bar at which you set your standards.



It is hard to believe now, but not so long ago that if not the norm was not a rare situation.

At my large city centre secondary school, students were leathered regularly. This was absolutely the norm, from memory I would say this was weekly in my case, and I was on the receiving end absolutely less than the average, some kids got it every day. This from trained, qualified teachers, not every teacher indulged but every student was on the receiving end, it was the norm and not the exception.

I have always been sceptical of the idea that teacher knows best.


----------



## Purple

Marion said:


> Many schools across Europe, Finland, included have dedicated career paths for students - academic or technical at age 16, upper second level. Perhaps this would help to explain why their mechanical skills are better than ours?
> 
> Marion


Possibly. Is that a way to improve our education system?
In Germany the usual path is a degree then an apprenticeship or vice versa.
In Ireland we are badly encumbered by educational snobbery so that path is less likely.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> It is hard to believe now, but not so long ago that if not the norm was not a rare situation.
> 
> At my large city centre secondary school, students were leathered regularly. This was absolutely the norm, from memory I would say this was weekly in my case, and I was on the receiving end absolutely less than the average, some kids got it every day. This from trained, qualified teachers, not every teacher indulged but every student was on the receiving end, it was the norm and not the exception.
> 
> I have always been sceptical of the idea that teacher knows best.


In my case it was after corporal punishment was banned in schools.


----------



## ashambles

Purple said:


> Possibly. Is that a way to improve our education system?
> In Germany the usual path is a degree then an apprenticeship or vice versa.
> In Ireland we are badly encumbered by educational snobbery so that path is less likely.


I'd agree about the snobbery on technical skills, but also the German school year = 188 days. And yes I'll keep harping on about it - because it seems to be an unrecognised problem.

We're asking Irish students to learn 12% more per week than their European counterparts. I doubt any expert in education would say it's better for children to try to learn the same amount in less days.

Bright students from poorer families don't get to go to France or the Gaeltacht for language immersion, they get an extra month to be fully distracted from education. It's not in the least unusual for bright but less well off first years to be passed out by their better off but more average peers by leaving cert.

For fortunate Irish students their learning year is as long as their European counterparts but here the extra weeks are funded by their parents. The shorter the school year the bigger the advantage to children of parents who can afford to fund extra education.


----------



## Purple

Has any poster from the education sector got an opinion on ashambles comments?


----------



## Firefly

ashambles said:


> Bright students from poorer families don't get to go to France or the Gaeltacht for language immersion, they get an extra month to be fully distracted from education. It's not in the least unusual for bright but less well off first years to be passed out by their better off but more average peers by leaving cert.



I'll try to dig out the reference later, but I read something very interesting before about precisely this. Students from rich & poor backgrounds were monitored and both were found to progress at roughly the same rate during the school year. But it was what happened during the summer holidays that caused the biggest change. When the school year re-started the following year, the kids from wealthy backgrounds had continued to progress during the summer and were thus up a level again from kids from poorer families. This kept happening each year. So, for this reason, a longer school year should be looked into.


----------



## Purple

Date today in the Irish Times about the value of Public Service Pensions.
It shows that the open market value of a Hospital Consultant's pension is €3,701,705. That of an average Teacher is €1,447,466, a Garda is €1,799,454 and a senior Public Servant is €2,126,285> Of course Enda tops the scale with a pension worth €5,168,875.
I presume the Loony Left, the Shinners, and the rest of the basket of deplorables will be up in arms (metaphorically only in the case of the Shinners) over this and demand that they all be cut.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Date today in the Irish Times about the value of Public Service Pensions.
> It shows that the open market value of a Hospital Consultant's pension is €3,701,705. That of an average Teacher is €1,447,466, a Garda is €1,799,454 and a senior Public Servant is €2,126,285> Of course Enda tops the scale with a pension worth €5,168,875.
> I presume the Loony Left, the Shinners, and the rest of the basket of deplorables will be up in arms (metaphorically only in the case of the Shinners) over this and demand that they all be cut.



I can't remember who "coined" it but someone said a few years ago that in the future, in Ireland, there will be a pensions apartheid where those in the public sector will enjoy retirement at the expense of those in the private sector. Given the security of tenure in the PS as well as being paid more, it's inconceivable to me why the pensions are as gold plated. In fact, it could be argued that due to security of tenure and higher wages, PS employees should fund their own pensions!


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> In fact, it could be argued that due to security of tenure and higher wages, PS employees should fund their own pensions!


Everyone should fund their own pension. The State can contribute with the individual topping it up.


----------



## jjm

Purple said:


> Date today in the Irish Times about the value of Public Service Pensions.
> It shows that the open market value of a Hospital Consultant's pension is €3,701,705. That of an average Teacher is €1,447,466, a Garda is €1,799,454 and a senior Public Servant is €2,126,285> Of course Enda tops the scale with a pension worth €5,168,875.
> I presume the Loony Left, the Shinners, and the rest of the basket of deplorables will be up in arms (metaphorically only in the case of the Shinners) over this and demand that they all be cut.



And you telling us it was the lower paid worker who got back more than they paid in


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Everyone should fund their own pension. The State can contribute with the individual topping it up.



I think so. If the state converted all the defined benefits to defined contributions and matched employee contributions upto 7 or 8 % (just like in most large private organisations) that would be great - it would immediately draw a line under our liability as a country into the future.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> And you telling us it was the lower paid worker who got back more than they paid in


The total of all taxes paid by State employees is equal to the pension cost for all retired State employees. In other words they either don't pay any tax or don't contribute anything towards their pension. Either way it's a sweet deal!
Anyway, according to the Comrades in Congress (formerly ICTU) everyone in the Public sector is underpaid.


----------



## jjm

Purple said:


> The total of all taxes paid by State employees is equal to the pension cost for all retired State employees. In other words they either don't pay any tax or don't contribute anything towards their pension. Either way it's a sweet deal!
> Anyway, according to the Comrades in Congress (formerly ICTU) everyone in the Public sector is underpaid.


Do the Government NOT pay  the 10.75% PRSI Like Employers have to for each employee.I would have expected they have to or it would not be fair to busniess in compitition for some services


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Do the Government NOT pay  the 10.75% PRSI Like Employers have to for each employee.I would have expected they have to or it would not be fair to busniess in compitition for some services


Nope. They'd just be paying it to themselves.


----------



## jjm

but there cost of payroll would be 10.75% more and the prsi Fund would have a lot more money in it.If what you say is correct everyone else has to pay extra in Prsi  to make up the under funding  .This is something that needs to be looked at if we are to make any progress in reforming the funding of our social welfare system,all employers should pay the same amount in to the system


----------



## cremeegg

Horray !!!

At last a post from jjm that is not only intelligent but intelligible as well.


----------



## Firefly

cremeegg said:


> Horray !!!
> 
> At last a post from jjm that is not only intelligent but intelligible as well.


Don't get too excited...there was still the inevitable post about PRSI


----------



## torblednam

What kind of nonsense is this - of course public sector employers pay employer's PRSI! They have to operate payroll in the same way as any other employer, private or public sector.


----------



## jjm

The future funding and guaranteed pensions for people in the private sector who through the paye system paid PRSI A1 and stealth levy along with income tax on there wages all of there working life is one of the most important issues and needs to be addressed and have the same guarantee as a public service pension.This needs to be written in to law same as if the worked in the public service.At present if government start to to run out of money by law they would have to pay the public service pensions the could stop paying the private sector pension.What posters don't realize it is already happening since they done away with the transition  pension public sector workers  on the integrated pension who retire from age 60 to 66 see there  public sector pension is topped up until the reach pension age 66.I suspect the money is  from the PRSI Fund and there employed dose not even pay into it if purple is correct in what he says.(this is not an anti public service rant if anything it is a rant at the private sector for allowing the government to pull the wool over there eyes) The Government need to put 10.75% of the public service wage bill along with the private sector into a fund so there is money building up to foward fund private sector pensions  and public sector intergrated  pensions.I know the public sector will still get paid even if there is no money in the PRSI Fund the Government still will have to pay and top up public sector pension for any short fall to prsi pension,


----------



## jjm

torblednam said:


> What kind of nonsense is this - of course public sector employers pay employer's PRSI! They have to operate payroll in the same way as any other employer, private or public sector.


Torbledednam you seam to work in the public service can you confirm there is 10.75% prsi stopped along with your own prsi contributions please.I am only going of what another poster said but I will be able to check with someone who is in the public service in the next few days,(HSE)


----------



## jjm

Firefly said:


> Don't get too excited...there was still the inevitable post about PRSI


FireFly I think you may be able to check is 10.75% Is paid in the HSE by employer


----------



## torblednam

jjm2016 said:


> Torbledednam you seam to work in the public service can you confirm there is 10.75% prsi stopped along with your own prsi contributions please.I am only going of what another poster said but I will be able to check with someone who is in the public service in the next few days,(HSE)



Yes, my payslip includes both employee's and employer's PRSI, same as anyone else insurable at class A.


----------



## jjm

torblednam said:


> Yes, my payslip includes both employee's and employer's PRSI, same as anyone else insurable at class A.


Thanks do you mind if I ask you is employers prsi @10.75% stopped on insurable employment  under class D public service,


----------



## TheBigShort

The pension issue is certainly a problem. It is unsustainable in the long-term. The public sector pension levy is now being proposed as a permanent fixture. As a public servant I support this measure.
I opposed it initially, as it had nothing to do with pensions, but rather paying for the private sector bankruptcies. But it is now proposed to contribute to the cost of public sector pensions and I accept that proposal as realistic.
On the other hand, it's not all doom and servitude for all private sector workers

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.rte.ie/amp/875987/

One day, when you upskill and better yourself, you too can be so rewarded!
(Ps. Nothing personal against the individual, good luck to her. But the system that facilitates this is rotten.)


----------



## torblednam

jjm2016 said:


> Thanks do you mind if I ask you is employers prsi @10.75% stopped on insurable employment  under class D public service,



I'm not sure if your use of the word "stopped" is just a colloquialism but just to be clear, employer's PRSI isn't a deduction from pay, it's the employer's contribution in addition to the employee's PRSI (which is "stopped").

I don't know about Class D, but I'm sure the answer is readily available.


----------



## jjm

Look who the cat brought in welcome to this part of the world,TheBigShort,
As a Public servant you know the PRSI A1 contributions paid by public servants after the 6 of april 1995 are intergrated with the old age pension to give you the same pension as public servants under the pre-1995 D stamp, .the understanding reached at the time said pre 95 and post 95 poblic servant with the exact same years would end up receiving the exact same pension at retirement

It worked out a little better for the post 95 public servant because they got a 5% pay rise  because they would be paying a higher prsi contribuition than the post 95 public servant which also ment the finished up with 5% high final salary it even got better in 2012 when the government took the prsi A1 down from 8% to 4% and put the USC levy on the pre 95 public servants in 2012 the gap between pre and post 95 prsi was almost 6% now it is only about 1.5% to 2%

The reason I outlined the above has nothing to do with public servants and all to do with the people on hear on about people not getting the same terms and conditions as public servants and fail to realize the reason is down to themselves .Some also fell into the trap of people muddying the waters .

Lets look at someone in the private sector earning the same wage as some one in  the public service we will take a final salary of 50000 euro and do the sums we will say both are 66 when they retire in 2017 both will get a  pension of approx 12176 euro from  there PRSI A1 conts public servant will finish up with 25000 euro in a pension 12176 from his prsi pension and 12824 from the pension he paid into which gives the public servant a total of 25000 euro

Private sector worker also has a  private pension which will give him a annuity pension of 12824 euro which along with his 12176 from his prsi state pension gives him 25000 euro same as public servant.

There is a problem for the private sector worker if as TheBigShort says pensions are unsustainable in the long term the reason is the Goverment has under taken in there contract to pay the public servant 50% of his final salary.if the state pension goes down the state pays the balance for the public servent so he sees no loss of pension he still will receive the same amount if the state pension is cut the government under law will have to make up the loss for the public servant so he will get the same anyway. there is nothing wrong with this they have done there job in securing there pension entitlements which they have paid into .

There is a need to press the government to have  the same contract for the private sector worker who paid the same PRSI A1 conts.for this to happen the government need to start putting money into a pension  pot so they can treat both the same

This is the reason I have pointing out that for the last 40 years private sector workers and public sector workers post 1995 have being paying a lot more than 4% in PRSI A1 conts and payback time has arrived,Time we stopped allowing people to muddying the waters and pulling the wool for there own self-intrest,


----------



## jjm

torblednam said:


> I'm not sure if your use of the word "stopped" is just a colloquialism but just to be clear, employer's PRSI isn't a deduction from pay, it's the employer's contribution in addition to the employee's PRSI (which is "stopped").
> 
> I don't know about Class D, but I'm sure the answer is readily available.



Yes the answer is readily available I looked up Year 2012 the year before the USC came in
PRSI Class D, Employee's paid approx 2.35% employer paid from about 1.5% to approx 2.5% Employer's/Employee's paid around 4.5% in total

PRSI Class A1 Employee's paid 8%  employer's paid 10.75   Employer's/employee's paid a total of 18.75%

in 2013 the year the USC came in PRSI Class D employee's paid approx 2.35% employer's paid from 1.5 to approx  2.5% emplorer's/employee's paid around 4.5% in total+ the USC

in 2013 the year the USC came in PRSI Class A1 employee paid 4%  employer's paid 10.75 Employer's/employee's paid 14.75 in total  + the USC  

in 2010 which is very interesting they put an extra 2% levy on the PRSI Class A1 total PRSI of 8% 

in 2010 which is also very interesting they did not put the extra levy on the PRSI Class D  you can see the minister and the department of finance were not going to shoulder  any  austerity measures like the PRSI Class A1 paye employee's which speaks for itself and we need to start standing up for ourselves and stop allowing them to walk all over us ,
ps
toblednam when i said stopped i meant to say total prsi paid by employer/employee
Employers prsi ti a payroll cost which is a tax on an employer/employee which has to be taken into account when they set the salary,


----------



## Firefly

@jjm2016, would you mind starting your own thread about PRSI and stop bringing it into every thread?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The pension issue is certainly a problem. It is unsustainable in the long-term. The public sector pension levy is now being proposed as a permanent fixture. As a public servant I support this measure.
> I opposed it initially, as it had nothing to do with pensions, but rather paying for the private sector bankruptcies. But it is now proposed to contribute to the cost of public sector pensions and I accept that proposal as realistic.



The thing is though, it comes nowhere to covering the cost, which means someone else must pay for it.


----------



## jjm

Firefly said:


> The thing is though, it comes nowhere to covering the cost, which means someone else must pay for it.



Firefly If you look at a public servant Grade 3 earning around 37000 euro started working in on the 6 of april 1995 the year the PRSI Class A1 came in retiring on the 6 of april 2017 having reached retirement age  between employer/employee they are paying 14.75% prsi more before 2013 add there pension contributions add there pension levy .I challange you to show me how that leval of contributions would not buy them there pension.

50% of 37000 euro will give you a pension of 18500 if they had 40 years service they would have 22 years service  take away the state pension of 12176 from 18500 and you are left with 5676 if they had 40 years service they only have 22 by 2017 so if you devide 5676 by 40 years and multiply by 22 years you will get a pension of around 3111 euro show me how you come up with the figure showing it will not cover the cost of ther pension it is not there fault if there money was not invested they paid it in,

there are a lot of front line public servants on around 37000 euro,


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> Firefly If you look at a public servant Grade 3 earning around 37000 euro started working in on the 6 of april 1995 the year the PRSI Class A1 came in retiring on the 6 of april 2017 having reached retirement age  between employer/employee they are paying 14.75% prsi more before 2013 add there pension contributions add there pension levy .I challange you to show me how that leval of contributions would not buy them there pension.
> 
> 50% of 37000 euro will give you a pension of 18500 if they had 40 years service they would have 22 years service  take away the state pension of 12176 from 18500 and you are left with 5676 if they had 40 years service they only have 22 by 2017 so if you devide 5676 by 40 years and multiply by 22 years you will get a pension of around 3111 euro show me how you come up with the figure showing it will not cover the cost of ther pension it is not there fault if there money was not invested they paid it in,
> 
> there are a lot of front line public servants on around 37000 euro,



The employer contribution is meaningless - it's the taxpayer! You should look at the employee contribution. Oh and did you factor in the tax-free lump sum in your workings? 37,000 x 1.5 = 55,500. Divide this by 40 and multiply by 22 gives a tax-free lump sum of 30,525.


----------



## Purple

torblednam said:


> What kind of nonsense is this - of course public sector employers pay employer's PRSI! They have to operate payroll in the same way as any other employer, private or public sector.


I stand corrected. I phrased my post very badly. I meant that there ins no net contribution from the State as employers PRSI just goes into general taxation so it's a zero sum equation.


----------



## jjm

Employers contribution for an PRSI Class A1 is very important to give you an example take two public servant grade 3 one started on the 4 April 1995 the would be employed under PRSI Class D and there employer would be paying anywhere from 1.5% to 2.5% into the PRSI FUND, Now take the other public servant who started on the 6 of April 1995 they would be employed under PRSI Class A1 and there employer would be paying 10.75% into the PRSI FUND.

I still challange you to show me how that level of contribution allowing for the 30,525 tax free lump sum would not buy them there pension


Firefly said:


> The thing is though, it comes nowhere to covering the cost, which means someone else must pay for it.


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> Employers contribution for an PRSI Class A! is very important to give you an example take two public servant grade 3 one started on the 4 April 1995 the would be employed under PRSI Class D and there employer would be paying anywhere from 1.5% to 2.5% into the PRSI FUND, Now take the other public servant who started on the 6 of April 1995 they would be employed under PRSI Class A1 and there employer would be paying 10.75% into the PRSI FUND.
> 
> I still challange you to show me how that level of contribution allowing for the 30,525 tax free lump sum would not buy them there pension



Why are you fixated on the employer contribution? That's the taxpayer!! You should focus on the employee contribution and show me how much someone working from 1995 for 22 years at 37,000 would contribute to their pension. Should be easy enough - what's the employee contribution percentage??


----------



## jjm

Firefly said:


> The thing is though, it comes nowhere to covering the cost, which means someone else must pay for it.



Should be easier for you it was you who made the statment it comes nowhere to cover the cost which means someone else must pay
Again I repeat 10.75% Employers conts go into the prsi fund for anyone on PRSI Class A1 and this comes from the wealth created or paid by employer/employee for the service provided for each employee paying PRSI Class A1 and is directly related to 10.75 % of there wage and not any other taxpayer's


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Should be easier for you it was you who made the statment it comes nowhere to cover the cost which means someone else must pay
> Again I repeat 10.75% Employers conts go into the prsi fund for anyone on PRSI Class A1 and this comes from the wealth created or paid by employer/employee for the service provided for each employee paying PRSI Class A1 and is directly related to 10.75 % of there wage and not any other taxpayer's


Private sector employer contributions go to the State. That is a real net contribution to the State coffers.
State sector contributions are paid by the State to the State so there is no net contribution from the employer (it is the State paying itself).

There is no PRSI fund!
There is no State pension fund.
If there was one it would need to have €200,0000,000,000 in it.


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> Should be easier for you it was you who made the statment it comes nowhere to cover the cost which means someone else must pay
> *Again I repeat 10.75% Employers conts *go into the prsi fund for anyone on PRSI Class A1 and this comes from the wealth created or paid by employer/employee for the service provided for each employee paying PRSI Class A1 and is directly related to 10.75 % of there wage and not any other taxpayer's



I am interested in the employe*es* contribution as that's the contribution they are paying for their pension - it's the deduction from your payslip. What's that percentage please?


----------



## cremeegg

jjm2016 said:


> The future funding and guaranteed pensions for people in the private sector who through the paye system paid PRSI A1 and stealth levy along with income tax on there wages all of there working life is one of the most important issues and needs to be addressed and have the same guarantee as a public service pension.This needs to be written in to law same as if the worked in the public service.At present if government start to to run out of money by law they would have to pay the public service pensions the could stop paying the private sector pension.What posters don't realize it is already happening since they done away with the transition  pension public sector workers  on the integrated pension who retire from age 60 to 66 see there  public sector pension is topped up until the reach pension age 66.I suspect the money is  from the PRSI Fund and there employed dose not even pay into it if purple is correct in what he says.(this is not an anti public service rant if anything it is a rant at the private sector for allowing the government to pull the wool over there eyes) The Government need to put 10.75% of the public service wage bill along with the private sector into a fund so there is money building up to foward fund private sector pensions  and public sector intergrated  pensions.I know the public sector will still get paid even if there is no money in the PRSI Fund the Government still will have to pay and top up public sector pension for any short fall to prsi pension,



Nope, back to our old form I see. 

Just to address two points raised. 

There is, as far as I am aware, no such thing as a PRSI fund. Money collected as PRSI is simply used by the government to pay its ongoing general expenditure. When the current generation of workers comes to retire the only money available to pay their pensions will be revenue collected by the government, under whatever heading, at that time.

The point that the legal obligation to pay public sector pensions ranks ahead of the need to pay any old age pension I believe to be true. This a very important and under appreciated issue.


----------



## jjm

Firefly said:


> I am interested in the employe*es* contribution as that's the contribution they are paying for their pension - it's the deduction from your payslip. What's that percentage please?



I did see data on a post on askaboutmoney related to the public service pensions and levy and the looked very high for what the were getting if they were paying a PRSI A1 which included the state pension it was far from gold plated if you were on a low grade 3 or 4 .You have a better chance of knowing what the precentage are seeing you posted on a few occasions that Mrs firefly worked in the HSE,I still think you have to include the 10.75% Employers conts seeing this revenue is directly linked to each taxpayer who pay prsi Class A1 and is a direct link to a % of there wages and no ones else,I know the reason why people get squeeky bums and muddy the water when i point this out that 10.75% is taken every time a PRSI CA1 gets paid for another tread some time,


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> I still think you have to include the 10.75% Employers conts seeing this revenue is directly linked to each taxpayer who pay prsi Class A1



You pay a certain percentage, your employer pays a certain percentage. What percentage do you pay? That's the cost to you in funding your pension?


----------



## gipimann

cremeegg said:


> Nope, back to our old form I see.
> 
> There is, as far as I am aware, no such thing as a PRSI fund. Money collected as PRSI is simply used by the government to pay its ongoing general expenditure. When the current generation of workers comes to retire the only money available to pay their pensions will be revenue collected by the government, under whatever heading, at that time.



There is a specific Social Insurance Fund, which is used to pay "benefit" SW payments such as Jobseeker's Benefit, Illness Benefit, Maternity Benefit and Contributory Pensions.   It is not used for general expenditure.


----------



## cremeegg

gipimann said:


> There is a specific Social Insurance Fund, which is used to pay "benefit" SW payments such as Jobseeker's Benefit, Illness Benefit, Maternity Benefit and Contributory Pensions.   It is not used for general expenditure.



Is there ?

What is the value of the fund at present ?


----------



## jjm

cremeegg said:


> Nope, back to our old form I see.
> 
> Just to address two points raised.
> 
> There is, as far as I am aware, no such thing as a PRSI fund. Money collected as PRSI is simply used by the government to pay its ongoing general expenditure. When the current generation of workers comes to retire the only money available to pay their pensions will be revenue collected by the government, under whatever heading, at that time.
> 
> The point that the legal obligation to pay public sector pensions ranks ahead of the need to pay any old age pension I believe to be true. This a very important and under appreciated issue.



I stand to be corrected but not my understanding there is a seperate PRSI FUND and it has being in surplus for years I believe it went into deficit for  short time a few years ago and is now back in surplus again , PRSI along with the levy sometimes is collected by revenue and passed on to social protection actually this is one of the reasons not all mind you why from time to time you get the odd squeeky bum when I mention the fact that PRSI Class A1 was always more than 4% Revenue do not do a good job on collecting the levy it is not there main  job they were only collecting it for someone else not like tax  before the usc came in I suspect lots of people who should have paid the levy did not so don't mention the levy please'


----------



## cremeegg

jjm2016 said:


> I stand to be corrected but not my understanding there is a seperate PRSI FUND and it has being in surplus for years I believe it went into deficit for  short time a few years ago and is now back in surplus again ,



I think the idea that the PRSI FUND is in surplus just means that more was collected than paid out in a given year. I don't think there is any actual fund



jjm2016 said:


> PRSI along with the levy sometimes is collected by revenue and passed on to social protection



As I understand it, all revenue collected by the state goes into the same pot. It is then distributed to the various government departments under the budget. There is no separate PRSI fund.

I may be wrong. But this is my understanding.


----------



## Firefly

cremeegg said:


> There is no separate PRSI fund.
> 
> I may be wrong. But this is my understanding.



There is a fund don't you know? It's the private pension funds that were raided a few years ago!


----------



## jjm

Firefly said:


> There is a fund don't you know? It's the private pension funds that were raided a few years ago!



Common since and you would know there is a PRSI FUND nothing to do with private pensions
If you think about it we are taking 14.75% of all the wages paid  by people on PRSI Class A1 along with all other prsi that is a lot of money every week to be taking in ,There is a fund and people need to demand it is used more for the people who put the most in and not squandered,we need to have more say and insist on how it is used,why would the goverment waste time splitting up the prsi paid by Paye workers calling some of it PRSI 4% and the balance  a levy up untill 2012 if it was going into the same pot


----------



## jjm

gipimann said:


> There is a specific Social Insurance Fund, which is used to pay "benefit" SW payments such as Jobseeker's Benefit, Illness Benefit, Maternity Benefit and Contributory Pensions.   It is not used for general expenditure.


 can you post a link please


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> Common since and you would know there is a PRSI FUND nothing to do with private pensions


I was joking. There is no fund. Private pensions were raided a number of years ago.



jjm2016 said:


> If you think about it we are taking 14.75% of all the wages paid  by people on PRSI Class A1 that is a lot of money every week to be taking in ,


With respect, you are like a broken record. For the last time, what percentage of your pay goes towards your pension?


----------



## cremeegg

Ok just to be clear.

Although the term is used by the Department of Finance, its meaning is not what is usually considered a fund. *There is no fund.*

The amount spent on Social Insurance exceeded the amount collected every year from 2010 to 2014, by an average of €1.3 bn each year. 

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/14.08 Pay Related Social Insurance.pdf


----------



## jjm

Firefly said:


> I was joking. There is no fund. Private pensions were raided a number of years ago.
> 
> 
> With respect, you are like a broken record. For the last time, what percentage of your pay goes towards your pension?



the company i work for have a very good pension scheme since 1982 It is a defined benefit designed to pay out 2/3 of my final saleryincluding the state pension .I also have an ARF With all due respect I' don't think it is any of your buisness how much i pay in ,the defined pension scheme is in surplus when it was last checked by pension Actuaries around 12 months ago,


----------



## jjm

cremeegg said:


> Ok just to be clear.
> 
> Although the term is used by the Department of Finance, its meaning is not what is usually considered a fund. *There is no fund.*
> 
> The amount spent on Social Insurance exceeded the amount collected every year from 2010 to 2014, by an average of €1.3 bn each year.
> 
> http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/14.08 Pay Related Social Insurance.pdf



we should try and break down what it is spent on to see who is benefiting form it, I remember hearing that it was back in surplus possibly over a year ago but i may be wrong,


----------



## cremeegg

It may be, I couldn't find figures for 2015 or later. 

But what does that mean, back in surplus, it just means more was collected than spent in a given year. The surplus is not kept to spend on Social Insurance costs in future years. 

It is just spent as part of general government spending.


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> the company i work for have a very good pension scheme since 1982 It is a defined benefit designed to pay out 2/3 of my final including the state pension .I also have an ARF With all due respect I' don't think it is any of your buisness how much i pay in ,


I'm not asking how much you pay in. You have given an example of a salary of 37,000 with an employer & employee contribution of 10.75%. I wish to know what percentage is paid by the employee. This is the cost to the employee and helps determine what you asked me, namely to determine whether or not the employee funds their own pension.


----------



## jjm

cremeegg said:


> It may be, I couldn't find figures for 2015 or later.
> 
> But what does that mean, back in surplus, it just means more was collected than spent in a given year. The surplus is not kept to spend on Social Insurance costs in future years.
> 
> It is just spent as part of general government spending.



I know that ,
As the same time we need to get a handle on who is pulling from it, 
As you can see  all prsi is counted separate  only 4% of the 6 to 8% taken under the heading of PRSI out of my wages finished up being counted balance taken as levy this would have made a big difference on paper  if the 6 to 8% was counted I know before you say it it all finished up being spent but we need to start question is the government going to treat people people who put in the same amount the same,


The point I have being making and I know you will check facts is up until 2012 paye workers paid over 6% prsi around 4% was went into the above so called fund the balance was taken as a levy which did not show up in the so called fund I am highlighting this fact so it will not happen again,


----------



## jjm

Firefly said:


> I'm not asking how much you pay in. You have given an example of a salary of 37,000 with an employer & employee contribution of 10.75%. I wish to know what percentage is paid by the employee. This is the cost to the employee and helps determine what you asked me, namely to determine whether or not the employee funds their own pension.



As i already said you have a better chance of getting that information from Mrs firefly pay slip,I am challanging you to back up what you said


Firefly said:


> The thing is though, it comes nowhere to covering the cost, which means someone else must pay for it.



can you please show me where you got the the information to made the above statment


----------



## Firefly

Jim...

OK. So I have used the online pension modelling tool at www.cspensions.gov.ie and entered a fictitious name with the following details:

_Joined post 1995
Salary 37,000
Pensionable service 22 years
Retiring at 65_

I don't know how to post screenshots but here is the text from the data returned:

*Retirement Benefits Statement* _(Based on details supplied by you)_


*Personal Details  acme acme      @ *
Date of Birth 1/1/1970  Projected retirement date at age 65 01/01/2035
Pensionable Service to date
Service from today to retirement 5 Years and 0 Days
17 Years and 179 Days Projected future working pattern 100% (Full Time)
*Total reckonable service* *22 Years and 179 Days* *Pensionable Remuneration* *€37,000*

*Your Benefits on retiring at age 65 *_(Based on current salary and Social Welfare rate)_
If you retire at age 65 you would receive a once off tax-free retirement gratuity of *€31,205*, less the deduction of any outstanding contributions.   You would also receive a pension of *€4,161*. Your pension would be paid in arrears on a fortnightly basis.  Based on your Class A Social Welfare status, you may also be entitled to a Social Welfare contributory Old Age Pension from age 66, currently *€12,173.59* per annum.  If through no fault of your own you fail to qualify for a Social Welfare benefit, you may be entitled to a supplementary pension.


From your previous posts I note the following:

_PRSI Class A1 Employee's paid 8%  employer's paid 10.75   Employer's/employee's paid a total of 18.75%_

This would lead me to think that the employee contribution is 10.75%.

So....The contributions in this case are:

37,000 * 10.75% * 22 years which is 87,505.

Subtract the tax-free lumpsum referred to above (31,205) from 87,505 and your total net contribution is 56,300* - *that's what you have contributed  As per above this is going to pay out €4,161 annually. So....I put it back to you....show me any pension provider who will pay out €4,161 per year on an annuity amount of 56,300!!!

Just to add....the numbers are not massive I agree, but once you start going up the food chain to those earning 70k+ the numbers get a lot bigger!


----------



## jjm

Firefly for a start if you are 65 in 2017 what year were you born in,4161 and 12173 added together and you are up near 40 years service.I would not like to have you investing my pension funds at you rate of returns,


----------



## cremeegg

jjm2016 said:


> Firefly for a start if you are 65 in 2017 what year were you born in,4161 and 12173 ,



A classic, jjm, probably your best yet.

You have a point, Firefly certainly seems to have confused some of his numbers. 




Firefly said:


> Projected retirement date at age 65 01/01/2035
> 
> Service from today to retirement 5 Years and 0 Days


Doesn't stack up


But, wow, I have no idea what you are trying to tell us.


----------



## gipimann

Link to the annual Social Insurance Fund financial statements

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Social-Insurance-Fund.aspx


----------



## jim

So it appears that gippiman is correct and firefly and creamyegg are wrong. There is a social fund.


----------



## Firefly

cremeegg said:


> You have a point, Firefly certainly seems to have confused some of his numbers.



I was trying to use the website as best as I could to show the retirement pension for someone who joined after 1995 with 22 years experience. Please, feel free to use the site yourselves to arrive at this figure. I think what I have posted is pretty close "Total reckonable service 22 Years and 179 Days Pensionable Remuneration €37,000"


----------



## jjm

Now this begs all kinds of questions ( lets for now stay on pensions ) Contribution rate some pay in as little as a few hundredth in contributions per year and they will qualify for the contributory pension , someone on 50000 per year would pay in over 7000 euro prsi.someone on 100000 will pay over 14000 euro someone earning 100000 and a house rented will pay more again, A single contractor set up if the taken an income  of 50000 euro will pay 1000 prsi. someone signing on for credits  pay zero. The biggest question of all is when you add up all the people on PRSI A1 public and private paying 14.75% between employer/Employee and you take that amount away from the total paid into the fund each year how much did the rest pay in,

we now know there is a fund with a total for each year we also know that 14.47% is paid from payroll each week to this fund by people on PRSI Class A1 and it is linked directly  to prsi Class A1 comtributions,

Over to you


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> Now this begs all kinds of questions ( lets for now stay on pensions ) Contribution rate some pay in as little as a few hundredth in contributions per year and they will qualify for the contributory pension , someone on 50000 per year would pay in over 7000 euro prsi.someone on 100000 will pay over 14000 euro someone earning 100000 and a house rented will pay more again, A single contractor set up if the taken an income  of 50000 euro will pay 1000 prsi. someone signing on for credits  pay zero. The biggest question of all is when you add up all the people on PRSI A1 public and private paying 14.75% between employer/Employee and you take that amount away from the total paid into the fund each year how much did the rest pay in,
> 
> we now know there is a fund with a total for each year we also know that 14.47% is paid from payroll each week to this fund by people on PRSI Class A1 and it is linked directly  to prsi Class A1 comtributions,
> 
> Over to you



For the life of me I don't know what you are talking about or asking me. You seem to be obsessed with PRSI contributions so I could advise you to open your own dedicated thread and/or seek professional, finance advice. I was replying to a specific point about the contributions of public sector workers to their own pension which doesn't come close to self-financing.


----------



## cremeegg

jim said:


> So it appears that gippiman is correct and firefly and creamyegg are wrong. There is a social fund.



Its cremeegg not creamyegg, really, we split with that side of the family years ago. 

Looking at the information presented by gipimann and myself I think it is a reasonable summary of the facts to say that, There is no Fund.

If you are still not convinced follow gipimann's link and ask yourself, if there is a fund, what is the balance on it.


----------



## blured

jjm2016 said:


> Now this begs all kinds of questions ( lets for now stay on pensions ) Contribution rate some pay in as little as a few hundredth in contributions per year and they will qualify for the contributory pension , someone on 50000 per year would pay in over 7000 euro prsi.someone on 100000 will pay over 14000 euro someone earning 100000 and a house rented will pay more again, A single contractor set up if the taken an income  of 50000 euro will pay 1000 prsi. someone signing on for credits  pay zero. The biggest question of all is when you add up all the people on PRSI A1 public and private paying 14.75% between employer/Employee and you take that amount away from the total paid into the fund each year how much did the rest pay in,
> 
> we now know there is a fund with a total for each year we also know that 14.47% is paid from payroll each week to this fund by people on PRSI Class A1 and it is linked directly  to prsi Class A1 comtributions,
> 
> Over to you



Once you are making contributions and have a full record of contributions you qualify for a contributory pension. If you earned €100k per annum for 30 years or if you earned €20k per annum over the same period it doesn't matter - you get the same pension.

Contributions are not ring fenced - it is not a personal fund, it is essentially tax. As pointed out by cremeegg and in the link provided by gipiman - there is no PRSI Fund. If you click into the links, you see a breakdown of the contributions made in the year and the payments made during the year - the surplus or deficit of which is funding/funded by general taxation.

You seem to have an issue with paying too much PRSI and not getting a better pension than someone who hasn't paid in as much. Tough luck unfortunately, that is the way our society works


----------



## torblednam

I really don't understand what jjm is driving at as regards PRSI and pensions... 

The way I look at it, leaving pre-1995 public servants aside, everyone who is paying Class A (and their employer!) is paying the same proportion of their income in PRSI in order to obtain the benefits it provides, one of which is the State pension. This is regardless of what sector they work in or indeed the level of their earnings, so the CEO gets the same state pension as the cleaner who earns a tiny fraction of their salary.

Separate from that, the public sector employee pays a pension contribution (and into the future the PRD is being converted to a further pension contribution) towards their defined benefit pension. The benefit they actually obtain in the future for these payments will depend on the level of the state pension when they retire.

The way I look at it in relation to my own situation is that I could at some point, take a private sector job which would pay me a higher total remuneration (including benefits like bonus, employer pension contributions and healthcare that the public sector don't offer). But there is a trade off, and as part of evaluating the two sides of the scale I factor in things like the security of my job and the value of the defined benefit pension, against the increased take home pay from the private sector.

People grinding their axe about "gold plated" public sector pensions, and using the example of someone retiring with a pension of say €50k+, tend to conveniently overlook the various reports on public sector pay that find people at senior management levels are actually substantially lower paid relative to their private sector equivalents and the gold plated pension is one of the main reasons why many of those people remain in the public sector.

Including the PRD I think I'm paying around 13% of my gross pay towards pension, and I'm fully aware that this is not the economic or actuarial cost of the benefits I'll accrue. The difference (the amount that my employer is going to cover), in my tallying up of things, broadly equates to their contribution to my pension, no different than in most large private sector organisations DC schemes where employers will match or exceed the employee's contributions.


----------



## jim

"The gold plated pension is one of the main reasons why many of those people remain in the public sector" along with the public sector generally being a doddle compared to the private sector.


----------



## jjm

Torblednam
Are you on about my post
Lots of employers in the private sector including my own employer cover a lot of the cost of there employees pension contribution not just in the public service,

maybe not for you but lots of public servants on lower grades when you add all of there contributions along with the 14.75% PRSI will have over  paid for what they will get out of it like lots in the private sector

from time to time you have 4% pot calling the kettle  black posters on hear,


----------



## Firefly

jim said:


> "The gold plated pension is one of the main reasons why many of those people remain in the public sector" along with the public sector generally being a doddle compared to the private sector.



You would need to back that up as it's a sweeping generalisation.


----------



## Firefly

torblednam said:


> The way I look at it in relation to my own situation is that I could at some point, take a private sector job which would pay me a higher total remuneration (including benefits like bonus, employer pension contributions and healthcare that the public sector don't offer). But there is a trade off, and as part of evaluating the two sides of the scale I factor in things like the security of my job and the value of the defined benefit pension, against the increased take home pay from the private sector.



Hi torblednam,

There are going to anomalies for sure, but the various reports that have come out recently point to wages in the public sector being _higher _than those in the private sector. When you add in job security and defined benefit pensions to the mix the overall package seems way out of kilter for many. 

Firefly.


----------



## torblednam

Firefly said:


> Hi torblednam,
> 
> There are going to anomalies for sure, but the various reports that have come out recently point to wages in the public sector being _higher _than those in the private sector. When you add in job security and defined benefit pensions to the mix the overall package seems way out of kilter for many.
> 
> Firefly.



Well the main recent report was the report by the Public Sector Pay Commission. Chapter 5 covers pay, excluding pensions (which gets a separate chapter), and in its conclusions it states:

"In terms of the earnings distribution, higher public service pay premia are present at the lower end of the earnings distribution and discounts are present at the upper end of the distribution. According to the CSO, private sector earnings increased by 1.7% in 2015 and 2% in 2016 whereas public service earnings, net of PRD, increased by 0.6% in 2015 and 0.5% in 2016. Therefore, it is likely that the public service premium has continued to fall in 2015 and 2016 as private sector earnings continued to increase at a faster pace than public service earnings."

In simple English, the upper end of the public sector is actually lower paid than equivalents in private sector. Which would accord with my personal experience.

The premium in the value of pension is a compensating factor for this shortfall on pay.


----------



## Firefly

torblednam said:


> In simple English, the upper end of the public sector there is actually lower paid than equivalents in private sector. Which would accord with my personal experience.



I'd say you're right.



torblednam said:


> The premium in the value of pension is a compensating factor for this shortfall on pay.


I think the pension is key for a lot of public sector workers and with job security it's why it seems so little leave.


----------



## Deiseblue

I really do have to laugh when I see the constant references to " gold plated " public sector pensions.
The real rolls royce pensions are enjoyed by  those , including myself , who in addition to their occupational pensions will , if we attain the appropriate age , receive the State OAP.
Both myself & my wife retired on an incentivised scheme from Bank of Ireland & currently our pensions provide us with a combined gross income of approx. €65,000 which will hopefully increase in the fullness of time to €90,000 when the OAP kicks in .
In addition by commuting a portion of our final pension we were able to access a combined tax free capital sum of approx. €225,000 ( including statutory redundancy of €42,000 odd each )  & then sign on - in my case for 15 months.
I know that we are extremely fortunate to have been able to avail of a DB pension scheme & to have had the huge advantage of working in a hugely unionised workplace who negotiated the aforementioned incentivised scheme but it would be interesting to know how many current & putative
Pensioners receive or will receive the OAP in addition to an occupational pension , I know that my late father who worked for Smurfits did & I know that my brother will also hopefully.
Sure public sector pensions are attractive but they certainly are not premier league status .


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> I really do have to laugh when I see the constant references to " gold plated " public sector pensions.
> The real rolls royce pensions are enjoyed by  those , including myself , who in addition to their occupational pensions will , if we attain the appropriate age , receive the State OAP.
> Both myself & my wife retired on an incentivised scheme from Bank of Ireland & currently our pensions provide us with a combined gross income of approx. €65,000 which will hopefully increase in the fullness of time to €90,000 when the OAP kicks in .
> In addition by commuting a portion of our final pension we were able to access a combined tax free capital sum of approx. €225,000 ( including statutory redundancy of €42,000 odd each )  & then sign on - in my case for 15 months.
> I know that we are extremely fortunate to have been able to avail of a DB pension scheme & to have had the huge advantage of working in a hugely unionised workplace who negotiated the aforementioned incentivised scheme but it would be interesting to know how many current & putative
> Pensioners receive or will receive the OAP in addition to an occupational pension , I know that my late father who worked for Smurfits did & I know that my brother will also hopefully.
> Sure public sector pensions are attractive but they certainly are not premier league status .



Well Deise, that's pretty impressive!

Sure, there are always going to be better pensions, but in the norm, the companies that offer those are profitable (notwithstanding BOI's bailout). In addition, the staff numbers are relatively small. The issue with the PS pension bill is the number of staff involved and the fact that their employer is still borrowing to keep the lights on.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> borrowing to keep the lights on.



Borrowing to keep the lights on for who exactly?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Borrowing to keep the lights on for who exactly?



It's just a phrase. We are running a current account deficit and we've broken through the 185bn mark with our national debt as  per http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php.


----------



## jjm

Anyone employed in the public service for  last 22 years paying PRSI A1 are paying for the same as  private sector workers on the first 24500 of there wages  ,Just before someone corrects me i know they will get a lump sum. after 24500 the state public servace pension kick in ,there are  lots of co funded private sector employment .

We could just as well say state is not paying it way and is given large tax breaks to the private sector workers to fund there pensions I benefit myself ,

I expect someone will say the state is investing along with you and will get some of it back in taxes.I will be getting a large tax free lump sum that the state help me build up and they will be getting none of it,


----------



## torblednam

jjm2016 said:


> Anyone employed in the public service for  last 22 years paying PRSI A1 are paying for the same as  private sector workers on the first 24500 of there wages  ,Just before someone corrects me i know they will get a lump sum. after 24500 the state public servace pension kick in ,there are  lots of co funded private sector employment .
> 
> We could just as well say state is not paying it way and is given large tax breaks to the private sector workers to fund there pensions I benefit myself ,
> 
> I expect someone will say the state is investing along with you and will get some of it back in taxes.I will be getting a large tax free lump sum that the state help me build up and they will be getting none of it,



I'm genuinely not saying this to troll you, and I don't know whether you're just not communicating it very well or I'm being a bit thick, but I just cannot make head nor tail of your posts about PRSI...


----------



## cremeegg

jim said:


> "The gold plated pension is one of the main reasons why many of those people remain in the public sector" along with the public sector generally being a doddle compared to the private sector.





Firefly said:


> You would need to back that up as it's a sweeping generalisation.



Laura Borphy filed a report of serious sexual allegations against Maurice McCabe, allegations which had never been made. 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...nic-over-mistaken-sgt-mccabe-report-1.3143305

Read it it is unbelievable, and that is before you read between the lines.

If you think that she will be held accountable then fair enough, but from my experience there is no chance that as a public servant she will be.

While many public servants start out dedicated and hard working, after a few years in an environment where there is no accountability for even the most egregious misbehaviour, they become institutionalised.

In my local village the long serving principal retired recently, the replacement is a drunk, teachers are conducting private grinds in class, one teacher who was previously excellent is failing to turn up for work as often as not, teachers who were previously slackers are no longer even making the pretence of being interested.

These things can happen in any envirnoment, but only in the public sector, can they continue unchecked.


----------



## jjm

torblednam said:


> I'm genuinely not saying this to troll you, and I don't know whether you're just not communicating it very well or I'm being a bit thick, but I just cannot make head nor tail of your posts about PRSI...



See can you follow this explanation if not come back  please,Yes I may not be communicating it very well.
,
Take a public sector worker  grade 3  hired after 1995 lets say the retire in 2017 the only reason I use 2017 is we can use the correct contributory old pension as an example there employer  the public sector worker will pay a total of 14.75% in prsi  through payroll
A grade 3  earn around 37000 euro top of grade

pension would be 50% of 37000  so 18500 euro per year
12500 would come from state pension (contributory) which public or private get anyway this leaves a balance of 6000 paid by there employer ,which the public servant  contributed to

.In the private sector there is a good chance the exact same worker would have paid again 14.75% prsi  they may well have contributed to a private pension so they would also have 6000 euro of a private pension per year and a lump sum of 55500, after 40 years in today money you would need  200000 of a fund there are lots of Employers/Employee pension schemes where employee would be making around the same contribution as  a public servant There employer would be putting in the rest in most cases that i know about the over shoot the 200000 pot just in case the market is bad when they come to retire,

The case I am making is the government takes the public servants Contributions and spends it .They also take the public servants/Employers 14.75% contributions and spend it but there contract of employment guarantees them there pension entitlements ,there is nothing wrong with this I agree 100%,


take the private sector worker they government take 14-75% and spend it there is no guarantee in law that the will ever get anything back in return,
Have you ever heard of Benchmarking  at the present time the state  contributory Pension is 33% of a grade 3 salary top of scale I think is should be guaranteed in law and linked to 33% of a grade 3 public servent,
Would you have a problem supporting above,

Part of the problem now is department of social protection have a policy with there new case officer set up to put people on a course once the pay any kind of prsi  they are paid from the prsi fund,

part of this fund need to be put aside to ensure there is money to pay the people who contributed 14.75% was higher until 2012 and not to find out in years to come there is no money left for the people who contributed to it all of there working life.

If you want to call it a tax fair enough then we should say  over 60%  of payroll is taken in tax from people paying prsi and working full time with no guarantee there will be anything left to pay them at the end of there working life,That is some plundering by the state .time to say leave some for when i can no longer work,seeing you are taking 60%  there is very little left to save and the way you are spending my money you are driving living and busniess cost out through the roof and rewarding and buying votes  trough the back door,Knowing there will be nothing left to pay the people who contribuited the most when there time comes,


----------

