All assumptions used in the calculations are explicitly set out in the article. What do you think is missing exactly?
Any and all mention of the different PS pension strands, there are 4.
new PS workers can't retire until they are 68.
New PS workers are not retiring today. The article relates to the cost of pensions that are payable today.
The effectiveness, or otherwise, of recent efforts to contain the future cost of PS pensions is a completely different discussion.
The comparison with the amount that a private sector worker would have to contribute to a fund to achieve a similar pension also relates to the accrued value of a PS pension that is payable today.
It makes plenty of difference.
Pre 1995 made no personal pension contributions and no Class A contributions.
Massive assumption there that every retiree had full service - which is very unlikely. Entitlement to 50% is after full service.If the average pension was 24k, then the average retirement salary was 50k, not 100k. Because the entitlement is 50% final salary.
Just to correct a myth - most PS always, always paid 6.5% pension contributions.
Pre 1995 they didn't pay full-rate PRSI.
Post 1995 all PS pay full-rate PRSI.
[Yes, some PS, not many, did not and do not make a pension cont]
A typical teacher has always, always, paid 6.5% pension cont - let me be absolutely clear on that.
Massive assumption there that every retiree had full service - which is very unlikely. Entitlement to 50% is after full service.
Yes - that's for the 'assumptions' part of the article - how much would it cost for a 25 yr old aspiring to a 24K pension etc. The 'actual of 24K' is for retirees last year - you can't draw any conclusions about service (and therefore final salary) of actual retirees from that single piece of data.That is what the assumption is in the article:
"The pension paid to the average civil servant who retires at 60 with 40 years "
It's not sufficient to supply assumptions before writing an article like this. The assumptions must be reasonable and the calculations accurate. The assumptions are not reasonable in my opinion and the calculations are on data the anonymous actuary gleaned from the pensions website but not made public. The more I look at the article the more farcical I think it is.All assumptions used in the calculations are explicitly set out in the article. What do you think is missing exactly?
The assumptions must be reasonable and the calculations accurate.
Which they also contribute to.
But if we are to compare like with like, then there has to be a reference to the 25 year old who joined the PS today - comparing it with people retiring now is pointless.
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?