I was enjoying myself and now you've ruined it!
Good article on why we should not be borrowing to pay increases to public servants
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
Sunny Sunny Sunny please tell me where I claimed that civil servants pre 1995 are worse off because they don't get to claim the State pension.
This is the point I am trying to get through to Green, but he cant seem to get it.
This part here that you have rightly stated:
thedaddyman
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,063
2 other things to bear in mind on the recent agreement
The latter point get's overlooked. Under Haddington Road, Public sector workers continued to get pay rises, except they were called increments and that will have recovered some of the salary they lost under the original agreement, if not all of it.
In fairness, they also agreed to work longer hours in many cases and I also know increments were frozen for a number of months and for higher salaries for the duration of the agreement.
Maybe I am daming the public sector in error and if so, my apologies. However it is all about the numbers so therefore let me ask a question that perhaps one of our Public Sector posters could answer
If I was a Executive Office Standard Scale on Band 3 of my payscale 4 years ago on a salary of €34360 per annum (figure is from the Impact trade union site- General Service Grades full PRSI), what would my salary be now before and after tax and how would that compare pre Haddington Road and the pension levy?
- Firstly public sector workers will also benefit from any reduction in USC's
- Secondly, many will still get increments
The latter point get's overlooked. Under Haddington Road, Public sector workers continued to get pay rises, except they were called increments and that will have recovered some of the salary they lost under the original agreement, if not all of it.
In fairness, they also agreed to work longer hours in many cases and I also know increments were frozen for a number of months and for higher salaries for the duration of the agreement.
Maybe I am daming the public sector in error and if so, my apologies. However it is all about the numbers so therefore let me ask a question that perhaps one of our Public Sector posters could answer
If I was a Executive Office Standard Scale on Band 3 of my payscale 4 years ago on a salary of €34360 per annum (figure is from the Impact trade union site- General Service Grades full PRSI), what would my salary be now before and after tax and how would that compare pre Haddington Road and the pension levy?
It is an excellent link. I thought that these costs were the increases as agreed under the Haddington Road agreement but they are in addition to those increases. The total cost is €566,000,000 plus the €278,000,000 which they were already getting or €844,000,000.
The recurring yearly cost to the people of Ireland of these two agreements is over a quarter of a billion Euro.
The minister also notes that, "Separate from this Agreement with the Public Sector Unions, it is my intention to fulfil my commitment to begin the orderly restoration of public sector pension reductions made in recent years."
Given that pensions are 50% of salary at retirement it will be a significant figure.
Like Purple, I don't get your point. They are not entitled to the contributory pension because they don't contribute. But they still recieve a Occupational pension that is higher than public sector workers who contribute to and receive the contributory pension. Either way, one public sector employee is the same as another public sector employee. What difference does it make to the cost of public sector pensions whether they receive the money from the Dept of Social Welfare or from their State employer?
Ok, to clarify,
Earlier on in the thread Purple said the following:
I pointed out that this was factually incorrect, that's all.
My point is he is wrong in what he is stating.
No, it's worse than that I think. The recurring cost from 2018 onwards seem to be 844m in total.
The document says "The agreement has additional costs of €566 million over a 3 year period as set out below." but looking at the figures they should be saying something like "will eventually cost 566m in a full year from 2018".
They're saying in my view
Cost of changes in 2016 = 267m
Cost of changes in 2017 = 290m + the changes in 2016
Cost of changes in 2018 = 287m + the changes in 2016 & 2017
The complete cumulative cost over these three years will be 1688m.
J
Jon Snow
Guest
The elephant in the room that your posts on this thread conveniently fail to consider, is what the alternative is?
You don't see an alternative to a government telling us "The agreement has additional costs of €566 million over a 3 year period" when the costs are 1688m?
My alternative would be the government telling us the costs are 1688m, and not needing a hunt by the likes of us to uncover that figure.
What you have failed to build into your computation is that the majority of the funding of the pay restoration over the three years comes from an incremental reduction in the pension levy thus ensuring someone on € 30,000 receives € 1,003 in 2016 , € 567 in 2017 ( not an accumulated figure of €1,570 ) & finally a sum of € 600 in 2018 ( not an accumulated figure of €2170 ).
The reality therefore is that based on the way the Government have approached matters is that somebody on €30,000 will accumulate pay restoration of € 2,170 - if salaries were to be increased then your figures would make some sense but because the restoration is being done majorly by reducing the levy your figures most certainly do not.
You didn't seriously believe that the Government understated the cost to the state by something in excess of € 1.1 billion over three years did you ?
If you look at someone earning € 30,000 they receive the biggest restoration of € 2,107 over three years , if you extrapolate that figure over 280,000 workers you arrive at a total figure of some € 590,000,000 so Minister Howlin's figure of € 566,000,000 makes absolute sense.
No need to be take it out on PS workers just because you failed to get a job in the Public Service.
J
Jon Snow
Guest
As a PS worker myself, I find this an incredibly smug and unhelpful reply everytime I see it trotted out on a forum somewhere...
galway_blow_in
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,992
you are right of course
Yes
Are you saying an increase in the cost of paying the public service is not an increase because it's a reduction in the PRD.
I can't understand why this isn't obvious, but the cost increases regardless of whether it's a pay rise or a reduction in PRD, the money comes from the same place and goes to the same place. Where do you think money to reduce the PRD comes from? Where do you think money to increase salaries comes from?
And yes it does appear that the cost that's claimed to be 566m is understated by over 1B for the three year period as described by Howlin.
Of course I am not saying that the increase is not an increase because it's a reduction in the Pension Levy.
What I am saying is that you have totally failed to appreciate the Government's strategy in restoring pay .
The option of restoring pay by way of reducing the pension levy means that that it does not increase salary incrementally as you have suggested - on the basis that you suggest someone on € 30,000 would receive in :
2016 € 31,000
2017 €31,567
2018 € 32,107
In other words they would have seen their pay restored to the extent of € 4,674 - God , they should be so lucky !
Instead they will receive in :
2016 € 31,003
2017 € 30, 567
2018 € 30,600
A total pay restoration of €2,170 as per Minister Howlin's figures .
A simple perusal of the mooted Agreement itself will verify the above , Minister Howlin's calculations have not been challenged by anyone in the media or indeed IBEC.
Surely even the most obtuse financial journalist or economist would not have missed on understatement of €1.1 billion ?
What I am saying is that you have totally failed to appreciate the Government's strategy in restoring pay .
The option of restoring pay by way of reducing the pension levy means that that it does not increase salary incrementally as you have suggested - on the basis that you suggest someone on € 30,000 would receive in :
2016 € 31,000
2017 €31,567
2018 € 32,107
In other words they would have seen their pay restored to the extent of € 4,674 - God , they should be so lucky !
Instead they will receive in :
2016 € 31,003
2017 € 30, 567
2018 € 30,600
A total pay restoration of €2,170 as per Minister Howlin's figures .
A simple perusal of the mooted Agreement itself will verify the above , Minister Howlin's calculations have not been challenged by anyone in the media or indeed IBEC.
Surely even the most obtuse financial journalist or economist would not have missed on understatement of €1.1 billion ?
I wish people would stop using the phrase "pension levy" when referring to pension related deductions (PRDs). Absolutely nothing is levied - PRDs are and always were a mechanism to reduce the PS pay bill without impacting pension entitlements.
What I find truly terrifying is that the annual gross cash flow required to meet PS pensions were projected by the C&AG to increase by 500% from €2.9 billion for 2009 to €14.7 billion in 2058 in constant 2008 price terms. When you consider the additional healthcare costs associated with an ageing population, I really don't see how anybody could regard this as even remotely sustainable.
What I find truly terrifying is that the annual gross cash flow required to meet PS pensions were projected by the C&AG to increase by 500% from €2.9 billion for 2009 to €14.7 billion in 2058 in constant 2008 price terms. When you consider the additional healthcare costs associated with an ageing population, I really don't see how anybody could regard this as even remotely sustainable.