I am pretty sure the Commission Of Taxation never mentioned that figure in their report.
The recent press reports were based on the Commission of Taxation reports.
Sorry to hear it is crap, but it leaves me a bit confused. We get repeatedly hectored and lectured here about the private sector, and how companies that sell crap products don't survive. How is it that you are paying €100s per month for a crap product. Surely it couldn't be the case that the free market isn't effective in providing great value for money for consumers? [I'm just wondering how it will take for somebody to blame crap pension products on public servants]
I want him (or you) to explain the paradox between the oft-quoted "private sector is always efficient/effective/competitive/great-in-bed" and the "my pension is crap".What do you want him to do?
I want him (or you) to explain the paradox between the oft-quoted "private sector is always efficient/effective/competitive/great-in-bed" and the "my pension is crap".
They don’t seem to quote it directly but the various tax relief costs in the report do add up to just over 11B. I don’t quite get 11.4B – just under 11.1B. The tax costs are in section 8 of the report. http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/Report.asp An important thing to bear in mind is that a lot of the figures are based on 2006 & 2007 data (most recent available when the report was done) – so the savings would be a lot lower if applied to 2010 or 2011. CGT on PPRs (€2.5B) for example would be based on numbers of PPRs being sold – many more in 2006 compared to 2010. Pension contributions would have been based on available cash to put aside – undoubtedly considerably lower now.I am pretty sure the Commission Of Taxation never mentioned that figure in their report.
That’s it? I’m a bit disappointed you don’t have a more spirited response to the loss of one of your favourite chestnuts. The difference between retaining public sector boomtime increases and retaining some of these reliefs is that the reliefs have been around for a long time and are proportional to the prevailing economic climate [CGT on PPR will automatically reduce as fewer houses are sold, pension relief will reduce as less money is available to put into pensions, gross rollup relief for pensions cost €1.2B in the report but when funds make a loss (or a lower return as people run scared into deposit vs equity funds), the difference between net and gross isn’t anywhere near as much]. So all of the reliefs naturally cost a lot less in bad times. Of the three largest reliefs (CGT on PPR, pension relief and employee tax credit - €8B between them), the employee tax credit is the only one I can see holding up its value in 2010 and 2011.We can't afford it. End of. [That makes it all OK, doesn't it?]
Did you receive them in the last two years?
You will also find that Dunnes Pennys Shaws etc are making a profit.Where is the money/profit in the PS?
The private sector is moving swiftly to a productivity type related increase..
Sorry, I'm a bit confused now. Are we back to evaluating options in terms of their costs, their benefits and their impacts? I thought we have moved to something like 'We cant afford it. End of'. If you can let me know which kind of evaluation approach you want to use, I'll be happy to join in. If you're proposing on using different evaluation approaches for different options in order to get the outcome you want, then you leave me out - no point in engaging in that kind of debate.That’s it? I’m a bit disappointed you don’t have a more spirited response to the loss of one of your favourite chestnuts. The difference between retaining public sector boomtime increases and retaining some of these reliefs is that the reliefs have been around for a long time and are proportional to the prevailing economic climate
I don't understand your point. What are comparing private sector pension providers to? Are you saying the public sector would have been able to provide a better service or something?
Ha - classic Complainer deflection! I know and you know that the following:Sorry, I'm a bit confused now. Are we back to evaluating options in terms of their costs, their benefits and their impacts? I thought we have moved to something like 'We cant afford it. End of'. If you can let me know which kind of evaluation approach you want to use, I'll be happy to join in. If you're proposing on using different evaluation approaches for different options in order to get the outcome you want, then you leave me out - no point in engaging in that kind of debate.
... will not rear its untrue head in your posts again. My work here is done.Let's get rid of the €11.4 billion in tax reliefs for middle and high earners for a start
Ha - classic Complainer deflection! I know and you know that the following:... will not rear its untrue head in your posts again. My work here is done.
It's a bit sad to see that people seem to be unable to debate the issues.Ah you poor pets..
You should try get net nanny or something similar to filter out all the negative things that people are saying about the PS.With no reason!! They are just picking on ye..
Just as well the rest of us aren't so sensitive!
Mind you if it looks like a duck,walks like a duck,quacks like a duck......
And who has been doing this 'denying there are problems'?Consistently denying there are problems that must be addressed is just plain irritating.Not acknowledging there are any problems is wrong.
What is this obsession with sackings? You do realise that sackings are a sign that;We can compare the PS to the Private sector all we want ,but this is comparing apples and oranges,until the PS for example can be sacked and are sacked and are seen to be sacked there will never be any incentive to provide the same level of service which those in the Private sector must do or face the consequences.
I'm not comparing them to anything. It was Caveat who told us it was crap, so I'm just wondering how this is possible, given that the super-effective and super-efficient private sector always provides great value to consumers and those companies that don't provide value go out of business?
I don't understand this. The return isn't related to how much you put. The return is related to the investment strategy of the funds you invest in. It's a percentage, regardless of how much you put in.One glaring reason is that I cannot afford to pay any more for a PRSA with a better return - that was my point.
Becky admits her pension is 'alright' - I'll warrant it's a bit better than alright, certainly better than mine, costs her a lot less, and is guaranteed - which mine isn't.
OK, now I get it. And many of us (public sector and private sector) are in the same boat.'Return' is maybe the wrong word. What I'm getting at is, the more you contribute now, the more you will get come retirement - hopefully.
I can't afford to contribute any more than I am already.
One glaring reason is that I cannot afford to pay any more for a PRSA with a better return - that was my point.
Becky admits her pension is 'alright' - I'll warrant it's a bit better than alright, certainly better than mine, costs her a lot less, and is guaranteed - which mine isn't.
Tell that to the pensioners who found out half an hour ago that their pensions will be cut.One glaring reason is that I cannot afford to pay any more for a PRSA with a better return - that was my point.
Becky admits her pension is 'alright' - I'll warrant it's a bit better than alright, certainly better than mine, costs her a lot less, and is guaranteed - which mine isn't.