why are we allowed to get away with those large pensions and greece are not?

Discussion in 'Letting Off Steam' started by NOAH, Nov 19, 2011.

  1. NOAH

    NOAH Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    729
    When I read about the exorbitant pensions our public service people are getting paid, eg td's mary harney 130k,, b cowen 150k, and so on and then I read that greece have slashed pensions and pay in the public service, why did that not happen here? We are borrowing hand over fist to pay these forever but it is a financial impossibility to afford these payouts so why do we persist?

    A lot of these pensions would cost in the region of 4-6million and would not be allowed in the private sector. Surely there must be a way they can be clawed back? It was all very well when the boom was in place but now with cut backs it follows they should be reduced immediately.

    Is it the scenario that in a few years they will just get nothing!!
     
  2. oldnick

    oldnick Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,411
    Considering how much our new beloved and much applauded President - the man of the people, the socialist, the spouter of high ideals - is pocketing I think there's little hope that other parasites - politicians and many public servants - will change.
     
  3. Birroc

    Birroc Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    278
    Yes eventually there will be no road left for kicking the can. The trick is to retire before that happens.
     
  4. ontour

    ontour Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,039
    Cancelling the payment of the lump sums would be a good start. How many people actually 'need' that lump sum on retirement?
     
  5. Knuttell

    Knuttell Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    713
    I certainly will not be defending Mary Harney,Clowen Aherne etc however slashing pensions that individuals have long planned their retirement around is both unfair and wrong...but paying Clowen an annual pension of what?135k at 51 is just flat out nuts,no politician or civil servant should be able to receive a pension till they hit 67...

    Just like the rest of us.
     
  6. ontour

    ontour Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,039
    It is not nice but over the last decade bricklayers made plans based on assumptions about the future, as did students, homeowners, estate agents, hoteliers and developers. Everyone has to accept change.

    By changing retirement age, changing lump sums and possibly capping state pensions at €100k, the cost could be dramatically reduced without putting pensioners in to poverty.
     
  7. roker

    roker Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,317
    They have put a USC on my €6,000 private pension to pay these public service people hugh pensions.
     
  8. micamaca

    micamaca Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    260
    What about the money going to pay minister's spouses pensions and gratuities to their children until the age of 21? No-one annoyed about that?

    I'm bloody horrified and I'm not even living in the country anymore!
     
  9. micmclo

    micmclo Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    155
    They are our elites, our leaders and gave their lives to public service so you'll shut up and accept it :mad::(
     
  10. NOAH

    NOAH Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    729
    Ha, looks like the indo is taking heed of my post.

    we have a lot to thank our leaders for and our great socialist has as always shown true colours. Am I right in assuming the President lives rent free for 7 years plus expenses and still gets paid 250k, for what??

    noah
     
  11. Complainer

    Complainer Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    4,960
    We have already slashed pay in the public service here. We've done it twice in fact.

    There are many, many people in the private sector with equivalent and larger pensions, particularly self-employed and business owners who control their own pensions.

    This is a very serious issue for public servants, and is leading many public servants I know to opt out of purchasing additional pension years. These Notional Service Purchase schemes are saving Govt money in the short term by reducing salary payments. If Govt don't provide more security and reassurance about the future, they will find more and more people opting out, so salary payments will increase.

    On the broader issue, there is a very strong case for capping very large pension payments, and cancelling pension rights for those under 65.
     
  12. Mucker Man

    Mucker Man Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    224
    When was public sector pay slashed?
    They haven't even stopped paying increments.
     
  13. Complainer

    Complainer Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    4,960
  14. Mucker Man

    Mucker Man Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    224
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2011
    Wasn't one of them a pension levy on your Rolls Royce pension?
    Have increments continued to be paid?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2011
  15. Complainer

    Complainer Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    4,960
    Increments are paid to those who achieve their performance objectives.

    No, the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions. People who get no pension are paying the pension levy.
     
  16. Mucker Man

    Mucker Man Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    224
    Fair play Complainer, you have an answer for everything.

    The ship is sinking but you're still at the bar trying to get one more free drink before it sinks!!!!
     
  17. orka

    orka Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    878
    So if the pension levy was a paycut in disguise and nothing to do with pensions, that means there are many in the public sector who DO get a pension and make no contribution towards it? That could be an area where the government could get some revenue - asking public sector workers not currently contributing towards their pension to make at least a modest contribution.
     
  18. Shawady

    Shawady Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    945
    To be fair, the previous government were quick to take the pension levy as a cut and say they 'cut pay' 14% to show how tought they were on the public sector.

    The pension levy was a fudge. The government could say they cut pay. The unions could say they protected penion entitlements.

    Whatever it is, with the pension levy, pay cut and other taxes, the PS wage bill is costing the exchequer a lot less than it did in 2008.
     
  19. Complainer

    Complainer Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    4,960
    I have this awful bad habit of letting the facts get in the way of a good rant. I promise to work on this for the future.
    What I'm trying to do is to find serious, credible solutions to our very, very serious crisis - solutions that minimise impacts on public services, and the many, many people who depend on public services.

    You've just made a huge, illogical leap, along the following lines:

    Complainer: There's a blue car.
    Orka: Ah, all cars are blue, then.

    Can I suggest that you educate yourself about the basics of public sector pensions so that we can have a sensible discussion on the subject. Your post above is completely factually wrong. I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you on this. Let me know when you've done a bit of research and we can continue the discussion.
     
  20. Purple

    Purple Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    6,262
    I agree that the pension levy was a pay cut, just a dishonest one which (wrongly) didn’t include pensioners but talking about performance objectives as if they have any real impact on the level of increments paid is laughable. Can anyone find out what percentage of PS employees that were eligible for incremental pay rises failed to get them because they didn’t achieve their performance objectives? If the bar is set low enough then everyone can fall over it and if there’s one think unions are good at its setting the bar low.