# What a public pension! Garda pension worth €1.1m,   Link to Irish Independent



## nad (7 Mar 2009)

What a package, Check out this from today's indo . http://www.independent.ie/national-news/garda-pension-worth-836411m-1664588.html makes interesting reading if the figures are correct.


----------



## Padraigb (7 Mar 2009)

*Re: What a public pension!   Link to Irish Independant*

It does indeed make interesting reading. As a public service pensioner, I do have an appreciation of how good a deal I got.

I think, however, the figures in the piece are a bit rough & ready. Deductions made 30 years ago would have been based on salary levels 30 years ago, and some adjustment would then need to be made for a notional interest rate. The ratio of contribution to return would then probably differ a bit.


----------



## Dundhoone (8 Mar 2009)

*Re: What a public pension!   Link to Irish Independant*

Excuse the brute force and ignorance here, but I was wondering, as a public serivce employee now paying €514/month into a pension (and im a post 95 top up public servant) and pension calcuators say that im paying twice the amount I need to cover a 50% pension (including old age ) .  Whats with that?


----------



## ashambles (9 Mar 2009)

Does the pension calculator you use, deliver a 150% lump sum at retirement.

Does the calculator allow for someone who wants to retire at 50 (Garda) or 60 and somehow get the same pension even before the social welfare pension kicks in at 66.

Does the calculator make a prediction that the buyer's salary will increase steadily throughout their lifetime. Many people start earning less as they age - down skilling basically.

Does the calculator assume that the social welfare pension will be as generous in future.

The last question I'd have for anyone doubting the value of their public sector pension is would they now swap their 50% pension for a pension made up of the value the social welfare pension and whatever topup is needed to reach 50% of salary but with the explicit implication that the pension will be made up based on the current topup needed to reach the full pension. 

To make it clearer take some one on 48k expecting to retire at 24k, one could say this pension is 12k social welfare (25% current salary) and 12k public sector (also 25%). Now would this person accept a situation where the government said ok we'll only give you from now on a 25% public sector pension and the social welfare pension? 

Now this would in fact be a very fair way of working out pensions (and sure to be a popular suggestion), if the social welfare is to be adjusted everyone would "benefit".


----------



## Caveat (9 Mar 2009)

As part of their 'protest' at the pension levy, it has been announced that a poster campaign is underway, illustrating the dangers of the job and showing photos of gardaí bearing the injuries of serious assaults suffered whilst on duty.

Now I don't think anyone would argue that it isn't a dangerous job but this is now a form of 'protest'?? Looking for sympathy??

If you are going to object, do so logically and with argument/reason. 

This is a disgrace - it's just cynical, amateurish and manipulative.

What's next - a poster of a teacher crying and pulling their hair out whilst surrounded by cartoonish 'evil' children?


----------



## Dreamerb (9 Mar 2009)

ashambles said:


> The last question I'd have for anyone doubting the value of their public sector pension is would they now swap their 50% pension for a pension made up of the value the social welfare pension and whatever topup is needed to reach 50% of salary but with the explicit implication that the pension will be made up based on the current topup needed to reach the full pension.
> 
> To make it clearer take some one on 48k expecting to retire at 24k, one could say this pension is 12k social welfare (25% current salary) and 12k public sector (also 25%). Now would this person accept a situation where the government said ok we'll only give you from now on a 25% public sector pension and the social welfare pension?




But that's exactly what most public servants get - SW pension, and the balance up to 50% final salary. Oh yeah, and the 150% lump sum. 

How do you think your version varies from current practice?


----------



## ashambles (10 Mar 2009)

> But that's exactly what most public servants get - SW pension, and the balance up to 50% final salary. Oh yeah, and the 150% lump sum.
> 
> How do you think your version varies from current practice?


With my new deal - a fairer pension for one and all.

1) If a Garda retires today at 50, and his pension is really made up of the SW pension he'll only get approx 25% of his final salary until he hits the SW pension age in 2025 or whenever. Last time I checked the SW pension does not start at 50, for fairness everyone should start at the same age.

2) Also I propose we base the non-social welfare component on the pension on the topup required to TODAY'S value of the SW pension and many suspect the SW pension will never be as high again as it is now. This is also fair as many people are using the current high SW pension to minimize the relative cost and worth of public sector pension.

In 2025 the SW pension might be worth half its current value in real terms, so the garda gets to the social welfare pension age and the combined pension won't come to 50% it'd only come to 37.5%. Again this is fairness itself as everyone else looking forward to the social welfare pension will have the same concerns. 

3) There's been talk for years of pushing back the SW pension age, again for fairness everyone should be at least partially exposed to the consequences of this.

Is there any public sector worker out there who would sign up voluntarily to such a fair scheme - explicitly paying them the SW pension with its age restrictions and risk of being reduced affecting their own pensions. If not then they know well that PRSI contributions apart their pension has nothing to do with the SW pension.


----------



## Dreamerb (10 Mar 2009)

You're picking out the Gardai, who have enhanced pension terms even relative to the good terms of public service pensions generally. The principles won't apply in the same way to most public service pensioners, and incremental pension reform already means that most new entrants to the public service cannot retire on full pension before 65 - unless of course they "buy back" notional service, but that's at full actuarial cost if that option is even open to them.

Gardai also have enhanced pension terms with good reason: it's because of the physical demands of the job, and the real physical dangers to which they are exposed in the normal course of work. These become less and less manageable with age. This justifies the reduced retirement age and the pension advantage; similar arguments apply for prison officers. 

The effects for other public servants (note that there's a distinction between "public sector" and "public service") would be smaller - but tell me, where's the incentive to sign up? As far as I can see, you are offering a stick and no carrot, in the interests of a "fairness" you have concocted yourself.


----------



## sandrat (10 Mar 2009)

Out of interest do psychiatric nurses have a similar retirement age entitlement. They have very physically demanding jobs and can be attacked by patients frequently in their careers and as far as I am aware do not have access to things like batons and riot gear etc.


----------



## becky (10 Mar 2009)

sandrat said:


> Out of interest do psychiatric nurses have a similar retirement age entitlement. They have very physically demanding jobs and can be attacked by patients frequently in their careers and as far as I am aware do not have access to things like batons and riot gear etc.


 
Yes there is a different pension arrangment for Psych Nurses - they could retire on full pension after 20 years I think.  There has been changes made since 2005 though.


----------



## MrMan (11 Mar 2009)

sandrat said:


> Out of interest do psychiatric nurses have a similar retirement age entitlement. They have very physically demanding jobs and can be attacked by patients frequently in their careers and as far as I am aware do not have access to things like batons and riot gear etc.


 
and they have to tackle danger as it appears rather than wait until it subsides and then go in and ask questions. Some construction workers might say they have a more dangerous job given that there are numerous deaths on site every year, drivers are on our dangerous roads every day, how many guards actually get seriously injured or die per year. should guards in city hotspots be on better pay agreements than those in the sticks?
If they protest they definitely dont have my support.


----------



## lou2 (11 Mar 2009)

Psychiatric nurses in the public sector (not private hospitals obviously) could retire at 55 if they had 30 years service in the past. However, new entrants to the profession do not now have the same entitlements.


----------

