If we maintain the same level of expenditure then yes. That means we need a different solution. I would suggest that everyone funds their own private defined benefit pension in order to compensate. If it's done over a long period of time that should minimise the pain.Therefore, a pension of say, €25,000 would have to drop to €5,000?
We have the same problem here. Pensioners are effectively untouchable in this country, as can be seen in how little they were impacted by the recession. I don't understand why this is so. There is no justification for helping people who have had their entire lives to make provision for their retirement at the expense of children born into socially deprived areas.No system is perfect.
If we maintain the same level of expenditure then yes. That means we need a different solution. I would suggest that everyone funds their own private defined benefit pension in order to compensate. If it's done over a long period of time that should minimise the pain.
I'm open to correction on the figures.
Slowly!That's a great idea, except that we have a Welfare State - Irish people whinge about the dole "only" being nearly €200 a week. How do we get to a stage where the State pension is barely enough to cover a full Sky package and some ciggies...?!
Nope , my figures tie in exactly with the link contained in # 87 , the increase in September 2017 totals €1,167 but obviously there is a crossover into 2018 which is why 567 will be paid in 2017 & the balance of 600 in 2018.I'm confused by your claim that pay will be reduced in 2017. Clearly your 2017 figure is less than your 2016 figure? Also you'll note your 2018 figure is less than 2016.
Seemingly when you posted the figures above, you did at that point agree that there's a difference between the cost over three years versus cost in year three, since you were trying to get the costs over three years to add up to around 2k.
PER seem to have made an error when describing a 2k over 3 year deal for 300,000 workers as "The agreement has additional costs of €566 million over a 3 year period.."
To explain the PER figure, so far you've claimed it's due to it being net of tax, next because there's some pay cut being implemented in 2017, and now it being because pay rises via reduction in PRD are not pay rises. Isn't the simplest explanation that the description of the cost by PER is incorrect?
We have the same problem here. Pensioners are effectively untouchable in this country, as can be seen in how little they were impacted by the recession. I don't understand why this is so. There is no justification for helping people who have had their entire lives to make provision for their retirement at the expense of children born into socially deprived areas.
I went back to the beginning of this thread for this theme which loomed large in the next 8 pages of posts....It has to do with borrowing money to give pay increases when we are just about solvent as a nation...
I never said someone on 30k will have a 34k salary at the end, or benefit by 4k in a single year. This is a 2k pay rise over 3 years using a mixture of rises.I take it that you now agree that someone on €30,000 will not not benefit to the tune of €4,674 as posited by your argument by the end of the mooted agreement?
I went back to the beginning of this thread for this theme which loomed large in the next 8 pages of posts.
I looked up the projections made for Budget 15, and remember the outlook has improved since then. The projection for 2016 was an overall deficit of €1.8bn. But crucially before interest on the Debt the primary surplus was projected to be €1.9bn.
Now, it was perfectly justifiable to ask the PS to endure emergency (unprecedented) cuts to their take home pay when deficits were double digit - the government was simply spending more than it got in revenue.
But to ask these emergency measures to remain in place when we are in primary surplus seems to me outrageous, one thing to tell the PS that we can't afford to pay them, another thing to say we can now afford ito pay you but these emergency measures can now be used to pay down the debt.
I think the interest on the debt and the paying down of the debt should be shouldered fairly by all and the PS should not be specifically targeted in this regard.
Okay, fair point. (Jayz we're getting very civilised round hereFair enough but does that not rather assume that public sector pay was appropriate prior to the implementation of the emergency measures? While it doesn't tell you the full story, the CSO's latest statistics show that average public sector pay rates are 48% higher than private sector pay rates - there is no observable public sector pay premium in the UK, for example. In a similar vein, the European Commission has found that the ratio of average public pay to per capita GNP in Ireland are among the highest in the OECD.
Okay, fair point. (Jayz we're getting very civilised round here). I felt the whiskered ones did not play particularly hardball on this round. They must still feel guilty with how they mugged Bertie.
I never said someone on 30k will have a 34k salary at the end, or benefit by 4k in a single year. This is a 2k pay rise over 3 years using a mixture of rises.
Let's simplify by saying that there's only one rise at the start of the 3 years - a straightforward pay rise of 1000 euro. Would you agree that the cost of that rise per employee is 3000 over 3 years, and that at the end a person who was on 20k is on 21k ?
PER's wording would describe that as costing 1000 euro over three years. But it's 500 euro over 6 months, 1000 over 1 year, 2000 over 2 years etc..
I looked up the projections made for Budget 15, and remember the outlook has improved since then. The projection for 2016 was an overall deficit of €1.8bn. But crucially before interest on the Debt the primary surplus was projected to be €1.9bn.
Now, it was perfectly justifiable to ask the PS to endure emergency (unprecedented) cuts to their take home pay when deficits were double digit - the government was simply spending more than it got in revenue.
Ashambles is counting up the combined cost. You are looking at the extra cost per year and not the extra cost taking this years cost as the starting figure.You have stated that the total cost of this three year package will be €1,688,000,000 or an average of €6028 per public sector worker .
As those earning least are to benefit more , am I to presume that those currently earning €30,000 are to see their pay restored by something in the region of €7,000 ?
Just as well I didn't use your original guesstimate of 2 billion euro !
My net pay, for example, is down more than €600/month since the end of 2008 (more than €40k net in total over the period to date) . . yet the government want to buy my vote with a tweak to the pension levy (special PS tax unrelated to pensions) thresholds next year worth maybe €7/week net to me (perhaps I can afford Netflix after all) and the promise of a a €1000 gross increase (another €7/week net) in September 2017 . . and (inexplicably) lobbed into the agreement is recognition of various initiatives specifically including Irish Water.
He didnt say it's all due to pay cuts..?Do you want to explain how your net pay is down more than €600 a month since 2008 from pay cuts?
He didnt say it's all due to pay cuts..?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?