Can you give examples of these higher taxes?Great thread
In the public sector, tax rates are significantly higher. Are there estimates for those in the public sector?
I suppose it is, as you must pay it to the State, and you don't earn any specific benefit.
That's a bad example. The contributions made by public sector employees come nowhere near to covering their pension costs so in reality a good chunk of their income tax payments are just deferred income.The PRD.
Is it a tax?
I suppose it is, as you must pay it to the State, and you don't earn any specific benefit.
So it seems to qualify as a tax.
You'll have to explain that post to me.They should not the cost of the pension.
Pension costs are shared between ee and er.
Other than the state pension, if contributed to through PRSI, the employee should absolutely pay the full cost of their pension. If their employment package contains an employer contribution that is simply another part of their pay. The employer should never have any open ended or undefined liability, such as is the case in many defined benefit pensions, especially if the employer is the state or is funded by other tax payers.The worker should not, and does not, bear the full cost of the future pension.
In the vast majority of work places the cost is not shared between the employer and the employee. There is a defined contribution pension that the employee funds and, in some cases, the employer pays a percentage as well but that is simply part of the employees total remuneration package and is quantified as such.In most workplaces, the cost is shared between employer and worker.
It is total unreasonable to expect other tax payers to fund the pensions of public sector employees without it being quantified as part of their overall pay and without it being a paid as part of a defined contribution pension.So it is not realistic to expect PS staff to pay the full cost of their pensions.
Ah well, if you treat the er cont as staff wages, then ok, the ee is paying all the pension conts.
I agree but that employee wage should be quantified and shown as the real wage. If that was the case then the true pay levels within the public sector would be apparent and people would be shocked at just how high they really are.Ah well, if you treat the er cont as staff wages, then ok, the ee is paying all the pension conts.
I agree but that employee wage should be quantified and shown as the real wage. If that was the case then the true pay levels within the public sector would be apparent and people would be shocked at just how high they really are.
The employees pension should be based only on the amassed fund value of their pension when they retire. In other words there should be no unfunded defined benefit pensions and, over time, no defined benefit pensions at all.
Yes but pay scales should reference all pension contribution values and all "allowances" that are pensionable.Don't the periodic analyses that the likes of CSO/ESRI carry out on the public/private pay gap, factor in the value of the DB pension...