Bottom line is that yes about 20% of private sector workers could consider themselves to have pensions in line with what's payable in the public service.
"Glaring factual inaccuracies "Nice one, throw in bankers to distract the situation.
There are a small minority of workers in the private sector whose initial pensions on retirement exceed those enjoyed by the majority of public servants. I have come across no private sector employees whose pensions are incremented in line with the salaries of those in their old position.
In any case the minority of private pensions are funded by the shareholders of these companies (except for cases like Anglo where the government has foolishly stepped in, but that is beside the point).
Your previous posts have had glaring factual inaccuracies in an effort to distort the true picture.
As a nation of tax payers the impact on our pockets of excessively generous public sector pensions that are linked to salary inflation DWARFS any envy that might exist towards a small number of privately funded pension schemes
Do you know what percentage of full time permanent PAYE workers have these pensions?
Remember that a large percentage of the work force are either self employed (and so responsible for their own pensions) or temporary part time workers. We should be comparing like with like.
"Glaring factual inaccuracies "
I immediately admitted to being wrong about bankers receiving 3/4 of their final salary on retirement , it's actually 2/3 rds - a mistake on my part, not an effort to distort the picture.
Care to point out any other inaccuracies in my previous posts ?
Bravo on the obfuscation once again though.
Why are we even having this discussion? If private sector workers are getting DB pensions, it is because their employers can afford them. Bottom line is Ireland as an employer of public sector workers cannot afford gold-plated pensions for its employees - and certainly not at the expense of taxing those who may have lesser pensions and/or are seeing a reduction in their employer's ability to keep their pension scheme going.
Given the above arrangements, the Group observes that the annual cost of purchasing similar pension arrangements (including the earnings-linking of pension benefits) in the private sector would be very high indeed: ranging from around 27% of annual salary in the case of a typical civil servant employed prior to 2004 to 31% for a teacher entitled to retire at age 55; 33% for a hospital consultant; 48% in the case of a Garda member; and as high as 87% of annual salary in the case of a High Court judge. The cost of providing similar benefits in a Defined Contribution arrangement, which is more generally applicable in the private sector, would be significantly higher in all cases. "
Good to see an official report agrees with some of my figures.
PS salaries are inclusive of SW. This report is saying that a civil servants salary needs a 27% contribution, a teachers 31 % etc.
Lets look at what they contribute inclusive of SW:
Pension contribution: 6.5%
Pension Levy: 7.5%
Employee PRSI: 6%
Employer PRSI: 10:75%
TOTAL: 30.75%
So this report is essentially saying that the full cost of most public service pensions IS covered by the contributions that are currently being made to the "funds" that pay the pension.
Most private sector pensions include an employers contribution (in addition to the employers PRSI contribution). If you were to include a notional employers contribution of similar percentage to the average private sector pension, then the Government is actually profiting from PS pensions.
I know people are going to bring up the PRSI argument, but you cant have it both ways. PS pensions include PRSI benefits full stop, so you have to include a public servant's PRSI contribution towards this portion of the pension in any calculations.
Good to see an official report agrees with some of my figures.
So you are basically arguing that public sector pensions are pretty much fully funded? Even if you were to ringfence the pension contributions and pension levy (I am not including the PRSI) into a pension fund and then looked at the liabilities of the public sector pension fund. What do you think you would see?
Good to see an official report agrees with some of my figures.
PS salaries are inclusive of SW. This report is saying that a civil servants salary needs a 27% contribution, a teachers 31 % etc.
Lets look at what they contribute inclusive of SW:
Pension contribution: 6.5%
Pension Levy: 7.5%
Employee PRSI: 6%
Employer PRSI: 10:75%
TOTAL: 30.75%
So this report is essentially saying that the full cost of most public service pensions IS covered by the contributions that are currently being made to the "funds" that pay the pension.
Most private sector pensions include an employers contribution (in addition to the employers PRSI contribution). If you were to include a notional employers contribution of similar percentage to the average private sector pension, then the Government is actually profiting from PS pensions.
I know people are going to bring up the PRSI argument, but you cant have it both ways. PS pensions include PRSI benefits full stop, so you have to include a public servant's PRSI contribution towards this portion of the pension in any calculations.
If the government switched to a DC scheme for public sector (please make it so...), public sector will still pay PRSI so only potentially the levy and the actual contribution could be 'ringfenced'.Lets look at what they contribute inclusive of SW:
Pension contribution: 6.5%
Pension Levy: 7.5%
Employee PRSI: 6%
Employer PRSI: 10:75%
TOTAL: 30.75%
A few points you seem unware of in your posts:(media usually conveniently omit that public service pensions are coordinated with SW and inclusive of SW and when comparing with private sector usually use a SW inclusive pension (i.e. "50%") for public servants and SW exclusive for private sector workers)
Most DB private sector schemes are also co-ordinated with SW. I was in a very good scheme with a previous employer (financial services) where the benefit was two-thirds LESS OAP - and I think that's quite typical.
Why would it be interesting? It's actually of no relevance because my employer was very profitable and could do what they wanted with their income.What level of contributions did you make to receive this? Comparison with the PS rate would be interesting.
Why would it be interesting? It's actually of no relevance because my employer was very profitable and could do what they wanted with their income.
Very very relevent to a discussion which is trying to make out that private sector workers pay more for their benefits than public sector ones.
Lets look at what they contribute inclusive of SW:
Pension contribution: 6.5%
Pension Levy: 7.5%
Employee PRSI: 6%
Employer PRSI: 10:75%
TOTAL: 30.75%