Public sector V Public sector

[S.L.F]

Im guessing you mean they already pay 6.5% into a pension pot. The thing is however, for example I pay into a pension pot. now if we both pay 6.5. I'm at the mercy of the market as to what I get back and after being through 3 stock market crashes in 20 years (.com bust, 9/11 and now) I can assure you I've lost a lot of the paltry pension I have. The public sector worker on the other hand has a guaranteed payout regardless of stock market conditions. I think thats worth the extra 7%

Maybe so if the 7% went into the pension fund which it doesn't

I don't have a pension at all and but if I was putting 13.5% of my wage into the post office for 40 years would I be better off.

(I'm expecting a few PMs from brokers trying to sell me a pension now )

it has to do with it in the fact that the pension has to be paid for from public funds. Funds which are incapable of meeting the bill. Ergo, the levies and cuts and tax increases etc that we are all facing in one way or another.

I have met a few PS workers and they all say the same thing they are not prepared to be a soft target everytime this govt makes a dogs dinner of the economy.

 

[Purple]

Your taxes don't contribute a cent to current PS workers future pensions.

Rubbish; the national pension reserve fund was set up to plug the 100 billion euro public sector pensions deficit.

BTW, I agree, and have stated a number of times here, that a pay cut would have been fairer and better. That doesn't change the fact that the public sector generally does not come anywhere close to funding their own pensions. That’s not sustainable or fair on the general population who have to subsidise retired public sector employees (and yes, existing public sector employees subsidise them through their income tax as well).

 

[Purple]

Maybe so if the 7% went into the pension fund which it doesn't

You keep saying that and people keep pointing out that it doesn't make any sense. PS pensions are funded out of current income so the levy should go into the current income pot.

I don't have a pension at all and but if I was putting 13.5% of my wage into the post office for 40 years would I be better off.

No you wouldn't.

I have met a few PS workers and they all say the same thing they are not prepared to be a soft target every time this govt makes a dogs dinner of the economy.

The public sector has, in broad terms, benefitted from the boom far more than the private sector so it is fair and reasonable that those who benefitted most should be looked at as part of the solution. Add to that the fact that their employer doesn't have the money to pay them (or access to the money either).

 

[galleyslave]

Maybe so if the 7% went into the pension fund which it doesn't

I don't have a pension at all and but if I was putting 13.5% of my wage into the post office for 40 years would I be better off.

I doubt it. lets take a crude example. Say a ps worker on 40k (no jokes please!) average over the 40 years
13.5% is 5400 pa.
assuming inflation and DIRT negates the interest after 40 years you would have 216000 in the bank. Assuming you budget for 20 years and expect to die at 85 you'd have just over 10k pa to play with, or put another way, a final salary percentage of 25% Whats the public sector final salary%?

 

[z101]

Your arguments are based on semantics. The tenet against your arguments have not be disproven at all and hold true. Nit picking peoples comments doesn't change the reality. Say what you like but this pension money comes from the government via the pension levy.

I guess its unfortunate temporary staff have to pay for the guaranteed pensions of their full time job for life colleagues. Maybe they should strike if it were not for the fact they probably feel blessed to have a job and are not much use to unions as they dont get memberships fees for life.

It's a perfect example of 'theory v reality' You are very definitely in theory land.
Try writing in bigger text next time that might make it true.

 

[galleyslave]

I have met a few PS workers and they all say the same thing they are not prepared to be a soft target everytime this govt makes a dogs dinner of the economy.

ah, so the argument is now changing to "not my fault"...

well tough. If I worked for a private sector company that was in serious financial trouble, it would generally be pay cuts or a p45.
so, by the same analogy, the public sector worker is working for a company that is in serious financial trouble and has to take the pain

 

[galleyslave]

looks like purple is making the same point as me...

 

[S.L.F]

You keep saying that and people keep pointing out that it doesn't make any sense. PS pensions are funded out of current income so the levy should go into the current income pot.

The point I was making was

1 that the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions

2 the PS get nothing extra for paying this levy

I doubt it. lets take a crude example. Say a ps worker on 40k (no jokes please!) average over the 40 years
13.5% is 5400 pa.
assuming inflation and DIRT negates the interest after 40 years you would have 216000 in the bank. Assuming you budget for 20 years and expect to die at 85 you'd have just over 10k pa to play with, or put another way, a final salary percentage of 25% Whats the public sector final salary%?

My understanding is if you are in the PS for the full 40 years you get 1.5 years lump sum and then 50% of your wage after that.

Say what you like but this pension money comes from the government via the pension levy.

Do you accept that the pension levy does not increase your pension when you retire?

ah, so the argument is now changing to "not my fault"...

Don't know because I'm not a PS worker

 

[michaelm]

Rubbish; the national pension reserve fund was set up to plug the 100 billion euro public sector pensions deficit.

Mea culpa . Taxpayers money does of course fund the NPRF which aims to defray future SW & PS pension costs.

 

[Caveat]

And don't forget, there is always this option...

Any PS worker feeling hard done by should contact a broker advising the details of their pension and find out how much it would cost them if they were to make their own pension arrangements.

Better still, form a lobby group, protest, and demand that they be allowed to make their own pension arrangements - I don't think there would be too many volunteers.

...any takers?

 

[galleyslave]

My understanding is if you are in the PS for the full 40 years you get 1.5 years lump sum and then 50% of your wage after that.

I think its clear that the 13.5% contribution you are talking about comes nowhere near paying for that pension provision.

 

[galleyslave]

Don't know because I'm not a PS worker

really? its the point you made earlier

I have met a few PS workers and they all say the same thing they are not prepared to be a soft target everytime this govt makes a dogs dinner of the economy

see, not their fault, didn't do it, won't pay for it. ... you said it...

I do wonder how a unionised, can't be fired, nicely paid sector is a 'soft target' compared with the non unionised, at the mercy of their employer, private sector

 

[michaelm]

...any takers?

Not me anyway. I joined the Public Service more than 10 years ago. The wages were not great at the time but I wanted the job security and the pension looked decent. Now it looks like I made a good choice. The Government should draw a line under present pay and conditions for PS workers and introduce a new deal for new entrants, for whenever a slimmed down PS resumes filling posts that become vacant.

 

[csirl]

I doubt it. lets take a crude example. Say a ps worker on 40k (no jokes please!) average over the 40 years
13.5% is 5400 pa.
assuming inflation and DIRT negates the interest after 40 years you would have 216000 in the bank. Assuming you budget for 20 years and expect to die at 85 you'd have just over 10k pa to play with, or put another way, a final salary percentage of 25% Whats the public sector final salary%?

According to your figures, a PS would be better putting the money in the bank. The pension that such a worker would currently get would be c.9k. (20k inclusive of c.11k SW pension which is paid for by PRSI contributions).

From talking to friends and relatives in the PS, a very high percentage of them would prefer to be on either a defined contribution scheme or simply to be allowed to make their own pension provisions. There's a lot of slight of hand going on regarding the figures being bandied about in public. When you consider pensions contibutions (6.5%), pension levys (7.5%), employee PRSI, employers PRSI and a notional employers contribution equal to the employees, you're in the 30-40% of salary range per annum.

Something just doesnt add up here. I'm told that the reason there is a public sector pension deficit is because the Government is paying pensions to pensioners of yesteryear who made no contributions and people in certain politically appointed positions who get "enhanced" pensions.

Current public sector workers are worried that because the money they contribute is being used to pay the above mentioned people today instead of being put in a ring fenced pensions scheme, there will be no money left when they reach retirement age. Most would prefer to make their own arrangements, even if their pensions we're quite as good, because they know that if they make their own arrangements they can plan for retirement. At present, and given the fact that todays pensions contributions have been spent rather than saved, a high percentage do not honestly believe there will be any worthwhile pension for them when they reach retirement age.

Pension levys and pay cuts dont help either - wipes out any disposable income that could be put in a privately purchased pensions scheme. A lot of public sector workers I know have attempted to start private pension schemes in recent years (where income permitted). I've asked them why, given that they have a guaranteed pension. The answer has always been that nothing is guaranteed when you are at the whim of a bunch of gombeenman politicians who have already spent your contributions and can totally wipe out you pension at the stoke of a pen.

 

[colin79ie]

Example. A private sector company pays 5% of an employer's gross salary towards their pension. Company then comes along and says it cannot afford to do that anymore so the employees will have to pay that percentage in themselves. If they do this then their take home pay will be less. If an employee decides not to do this then their pension fund will be less.

Why then, can the public sector workers not be treated the same. If you don't like the levy, then opt out but your pension will be less.

 

[z101]

1 that the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions
2 the PS get nothing extra for paying this levy

Do you accept that the pension levy does not increase your pension when you retire?

Don't know because I'm not a PS worker

As public sector pension money has to come from somerwhere how do you draw (1) that conclusion or what are you baseing it on?
(2) They are been asked to contribute toward their own pension (like everone else) and which should always have been the way, why on earth should they get anything else extra.

I never said the levy increases your pension when you retire. This, in my view is to meet the current contributions needed that go toward PS guaranteed pensions. Which I may add the country cant afford in the current climate.

Your not a public service worker, wonder how people got that idea... Is someone close to you one??

 

[z101]

Current public sector workers are worried that because the money they contribute is being used to pay the above mentioned people today instead of being put in a ring fenced pensions scheme, there will be no money left when they reach retirement age.

Pension levys and pay cuts dont help either - wipes out any disposable income that could be put in a privately purchased pensions scheme. A lot of public sector workers I know have attempted to start private pension schemes in recent years (where income permitted).
I've asked them why, given that they have a guaranteed pension. The answer has always been that nothing is guaranteed when you are at the whim of a bunch of gombeenman politicians who have already spent your contributions and can totally wipe out you pension at the stoke of a pen.

Where is there any evidence to support this? apart from Union propaganda to strike fear into their members? This is using fear to access your situation. I bet if push came to shove they would change nothing.

 

[liaconn]

Your not a public service worker, wonder how people got that idea... Is someone close to you one??

Maybe he's just a private sector worker with a balanced view???

The point SLF is making is that Public Sector Workers get absolutely nothing extra for their pension levy that they weren't getting before. It is a pay cut by another name.

 

[galleyslave]

Maybe he's just a private sector worker with a balanced view???

The point SLF is making is that Public Sector Workers get absolutely nothing extra for their pension levy that they weren't getting before. It is a pay cut by another name.

well, we're all taking pay cuts. I've had a 5% cut, on top of that I've had my shifts cut. On top of that we've had tax /paye/whatever rises. My wife's lost her job. All in all, we're down about 20k pa. So its a bit hard for me to feel sorry for those in the public sector that get "absolutely nothing extra" for their cuts. I got absolutely nothing for mine except the fun of trying to run a household on 1 income while my wife struggled, in vain, to get the dole

and further, this whole concept of getting nothing for taking a pay cut - ffs, the country is screwed and rather than accept a cut, it's whats in it for me if I take a cut... in other words it's not a cut, its a quid pro quo. a transfer of salary into benefit...

 

[Sunny]

Has all this not been argued to death by now. People have their views and these are not going to change by rehashing old arguments.