The cost of their pensions are even higher! You know, because they live longer.What about all the females?
That has zero impact on their pensions - the maximum pension accrues on 40 years service.What about those that contribute for more than 40 years?
All of which are completely and utterly irrelevant to calculating the actuarial value of a pension payable today.... without taking into account pre & post 95 pensions, the embargo, etc.
I still don't know what data you are talking about. I assume you are not suggesting that the Pensions Authority (a statutory authority) would install a corrupted calculator on its website.the calculator on the website of the Pensions Authority...data has not been made public and therefore cannot be scrutinised.
Regardless, it's irrelevant.* - Assumption - may or may not be true.
"I'm regularly surprised at the degree to which public servants underestimate the true value of their pension entitlements."
Any chance you could give us a link or two to the above statement?
ppmeath
Civil service is 10% of PS, so most PS always made 6.55 pension conts.
I did point out that some PS, e.g. the civil service, did not pay the 6.5%.
30,000 approx civil service
300,000 approx wider PS.
The "contributions" are entirely notional - they don't get paid into a fund. In any event, the "contribution" level is immaterial in the context of the benefits accrued.
Why? The article is talking about the value of pensions payable today - and will remain payable for a very long time to come.
It is certainly not pointless to highlight the huge cost of these pensions in the context of budgetary projections, on-going negotiations with public sector unions, etc.
The Public Sector incorporates the Civil Service, that pension scheme is more or less the same pension scheme that a Garda, Nurse etc .
Carry on ignoring this part Sarenco:.
You've made a sweeping statement with no back up. Similar to ould chat in a pub, but hurtful and spoken like a know-all, yet no known substance to it. Oh, apart from your own opinion.I don't understand - I can hardly provide a link to my own comment!
You've made a sweeping statement with no back up. Similar to ould chat in a pub, but hurtful and spoken like a know-all, yet no known substance to it. Oh, apart from your own opinion.
A difference of 130 per week before tax after 40 yrs work.
No, they're not "notional", from an employee point of view, they are very real, they pay real money.
Payable to those who are retiring on very good terms, terms that have been altered considerably and there is no mention of it.
Genuine question - could you estimate how much it would cost a 60-year old man to buy an annuity that pays €130 per week?
Assume for this purpose that a surviving spouse will receive half that amount and that the €130 figure will escalate over time in line with inflation.
[incidentally, the non-contributory pension is means tested and is currently only payable at 66 but ignore that detail for the time being.]
Do you suggest that after 40yrs of work my wife does not deserve a pension pre tax of 130 euro extra compared to somebody who may have never worked? I dont think so
The Public Sector incorporates the Civil Service, that pension scheme is more or less the same pension scheme that a Garda, Nurse etc has.
Pre 1995 didn't make a personal pension contribution, they contributed towards the spouses and dependent's pension only, that is not a criticism, it is the way the system was.
Doesn't a pension of €30,000 cost around €1,000,000 in the open market?
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?