Good article on why we should not be borrowing to pay increases to public servants

galway_blow_in said:
plenty of public servants quote their wages as a NET figure as it makes it look like they are on a lower amount , its a union coached tactic , guards also omit the numerous allowances they receive
Click to expand...
The figure on your P60 is what matters. Plus the difference between contributions made nominal cost of funding your pension.
If allowances are pensionable it is particularly dishonest not to include them.
 
Very honest post.
Wages should be set based on the employees value to the organisation. They should never be based on what the employee needs to make ends meet.
The responsibility to make sure that everyone has a minimum standard of living belongs to the state and so should be bourn by the people collectively. Such a social burden should never to imposed directly on an employer. If we want employers to contribute more then increase their taxes.
 
So according to the nothing if not inconsistent Deiseblue
New deal to be voted on ,costing 560 million over 3 years​

and it will also cost 560m over 1 year (290k public servants btw)
There are approx. 280,000 Public Sector workers x €2,000 = € 560,000,000.​

and it will also be far cheaper - over three years?
as pointed out the net cost to the State will be far less than € 560 million.​


I'd a look at the text of the agreement (somebody had to - [broken link removed]), from that I believe the 3 years are really just two years, the agreement kicks in next year and covers 2016 and 2017. It also does seem that they're excluding the payrises over 65k which were already factored in - which is reasonable enough.

So now we're looking at 2 years and 300m + 300m + maybe 200m. So around 700-800m. If they are indeed using net of tax figures - an unwelcome first in my experience of listening to announcements on pay rises, then that 800m could probably net down to around 566m - using an average tax rate of around 30%.

Howlin was effectively saying 300m+600m+600m=600m. It shouldn't need someone to dig into their figures and see they probably really mean two years, they're excluding some costs already factored in, and they're taking a guess at a net of tax figure. Governments don't talk about pay net of tax when discussing increases or cuts, for tax they consider themselves as normal employers. If we can use net figures here, the next time there's a 2.5% rise we'll need to check do they mean 5%.
 
Purple said:
You give the impression that state employees are funding their pensions
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that impression from?

Purple said:
Pre 95 public sector employees get a state pension
Click to expand...

No they don’t. They pay a Class B PRSI stamp and so are not entitled to a state pension.


I feel we both agree that the current situation is unsustainable however where we disagree is that the best place to start is with the people who do not pay any pension contributions at all.

Less than half of workers aged 20 to 69 have a pension.

In other words 900,000 workers in the private sector have no pension.

Rant all you like about public sector pensions but this is the real elephant in the room.
 
venice said:
Where are you getting that impression from?



No they don’t. They pay a Class B PRSI stamp and so are not entitled to a state pension.
Click to expand...
The state funds their pension. What do you call it?


I'd like to see the breakdown of the future liabilities but it's like being nuked twice; does it matter which one killed you? Both are part of the same unsustainable problem. The state pension is too high and people get it too early. We can't afford any of it.
 
Ashambles , inconsistent - not in this case anyway

The Lansdowne Road Agreement replaces the Haddington Road Agreement in the same way that the HRA replaced the Croke Park Agreement .

If agreed to by the various Union's memberships ( quite a big if , by the way ) the Agreement will run for three years from this year until 2018.

Over the course of the Agreement the vast majority of public sector workers will see their pay restored in 2 tranches - € 1,000 euros in both 2016 & 2017 - the State have based their calculations on these figures & given the fact that there are approx 280,000 Public Sector workers it is easy to see how the figures grosses out at 560,000,000 a large chunk of which will be recouped as detailed in other posts above.
Your calculation that any new Agreement will cost the State 2 billion euros is fanciful in the extreme.
 
Purple said:
The state funds their pension. What do you call it?
Click to expand...


Employees whom contribute to Qualified Pay Related Social Insurance (PRSI) are entitled to a contributory retirement pension (if they have retired by age 65) or an old age pension (payable from age 66).

Public servants who pay Class B contributions are not entitled to the above.

To pretend otherwise is mischievous and misleading.
 
So what do you call a pension that is funded by the state but is not a state pension?
It's all part of the state's pension liability and is all paid for through taxation. It all comes out of the same pot.

It walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it is not a duck. What is this creature called?
 
Ignoring the pay increases that will be given to higher paid public sector employees the figures you have given mean that it will cost €280'000'000 in the first year and each year afterwards plus another €280'000'000 in year two and each year afterwards so it's €280'000'000 in year one and €560'000'000 in year two and each year afterwards. It is not a one off cost, it is a yearly recurring cost.
 
Purple said:
It walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it is not a duck. What is this creature called?
Click to expand...

A donkey?

Purple said:
And while you're at it; how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Click to expand...

12?

Purple said:
So what do you call a pension that is funded by the state but is not a state pension?
Click to expand...

An old age pension, paid at the age of 66 soon to be increased to 67 and then 68, which you are entitled to by paying a Class A stamp for a minimum of 10 years and not to be confused by a pension that a pre 1995 employee gets who does not pay a full stamp, Class B prsi.

Also not to be confused with Ducks, Donkeys or Angels.
 

Thanks for that , an excellent summary - a Gross cost of €566,000,000 over three years with an ongoing commitment to an orderly winding down of the FEMPI legislation & a further commitment outside of this mooted Agreement to abolishing the pension deductions again in an orderly manner , I didn't realise that the pay restoration amounts came in three tranches in 2016 , 2017 & 2018 .

Good to note that the Government is also standing over the commitments they gave in the Haddington Road Agreement.
 
Last edited:

Without wanting to get in the middle of your little love in with Purple, I think it might be you that is being mischievous and misleading by claiming that civil servants pre 1995 are somehow worse off because they don't get to claim the State pension. Post 1995 employees simply pay a higher level of PRSI and therefore are entitled to the State Pension. Their occupational pension is then adjusted by this amount. Pre 1995 employees don't have their pension adjusted as they are not entitled to the State pension. They both end up with pretty much the same so not sure why you are bringing pre 1995 civil servants into it?
 
venice said:
A donkey?
Click to expand...
No, that's the person who thinks it's not a duck.



venice said:
12?
Click to expand...
I refer to my previous question about irony.



Ok, so in effect it's the same thing; a pension funded and paid by the state.
You can be as obtuse as you like but it doesn't change the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register