Fianna Fail at it Again


What do you want him to do? Magically make stock markets rocket in value? The majority of people have to take risk if they want to provide a decent pension on their retirement. They don't enjoy the security of defined benefit pensions. And before you ask why shouldn't people enjoy access to a defined benefit scheme, it is because the cost of such schemes make them economic suicide due to changing demographics. The cost of pensions in Ireland and across the world (especially in the public sector where they don't have to be funded) is an economic timebomb.
 
I want him (or you) to explain the paradox between the oft-quoted "private sector is always efficient/effective/competitive/great-in-bed" and the "my pension is crap".

I don't understand your point. What are comparing private sector pension providers to? Are you saying the public sector would have been able to provide a better service or something?
 
I am pretty sure the Commission Of Taxation never mentioned that figure in their report.
They don’t seem to quote it directly but the various tax relief costs in the report do add up to just over 11B. I don’t quite get 11.4B – just under 11.1B. The tax costs are in section 8 of the report. http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/Report.asp An important thing to bear in mind is that a lot of the figures are based on 2006 & 2007 data (most recent available when the report was done) – so the savings would be a lot lower if applied to 2010 or 2011. CGT on PPRs (€2.5B) for example would be based on numbers of PPRs being sold – many more in 2006 compared to 2010. Pension contributions would have been based on available cash to put aside – undoubtedly considerably lower now.


We can't afford it. End of. [That makes it all OK, doesn't it?]
That’s it? I’m a bit disappointed you don’t have a more spirited response to the loss of one of your favourite chestnuts. The difference between retaining public sector boomtime increases and retaining some of these reliefs is that the reliefs have been around for a long time and are proportional to the prevailing economic climate [CGT on PPR will automatically reduce as fewer houses are sold, pension relief will reduce as less money is available to put into pensions, gross rollup relief for pensions cost €1.2B in the report but when funds make a loss (or a lower return as people run scared into deposit vs equity funds), the difference between net and gross isn’t anywhere near as much]. So all of the reliefs naturally cost a lot less in bad times. Of the three largest reliefs (CGT on PPR, pension relief and employee tax credit - €8B between them), the employee tax credit is the only one I can see holding up its value in 2010 and 2011.
 
Did you receive them in the last two years?
You will also find that Dunnes Pennys Shaws etc are making a profit.Where is the money/profit in the PS?
The private sector is moving swiftly to a productivity type related increase..

Did I receive them in the last 2 years - no , top of the scale but I did receive the 3.5 % increase due under the national wage agreement towards 2016 and yes I 'm private sector.

No 17 % pay reduction for me !
 
Sorry, I'm a bit confused now. Are we back to evaluating options in terms of their costs, their benefits and their impacts? I thought we have moved to something like 'We cant afford it. End of'. If you can let me know which kind of evaluation approach you want to use, I'll be happy to join in. If you're proposing on using different evaluation approaches for different options in order to get the outcome you want, then you leave me out - no point in engaging in that kind of debate.


I don't understand your point. What are comparing private sector pension providers to? Are you saying the public sector would have been able to provide a better service or something?

I'm not comparing them to anything. It was Caveat who told us it was crap, so I'm just wondering how this is possible, given that the super-effective and super-efficient private sector always provides great value to consumers and those companies that don't provide value go out of business?
 
While cuts may be needed I constantly am amazed at the ire that is direcred at public sector workers. It seems to me that when people start giving out at the moment , no matter what causes them to start it always ends in the crucifixion of public servants.
 
Mugga you are correct. I pointed out on another thread on this Forum that everything failed is blamed on the Public Servants. It is an old political solution i.e. when all else fails . . . blame the Public Service. The old Divide-and-Conquer-Trick never fails.

In the past year or so we have seen a derivitave of this:- Front Line Public Service (Nurses, Gardaí etc) = Brilliant; all others = useless. Master Stroke which led to some of the Public Service being criticised by the rest of the Public Service.

The unions have not helped either e.g Irish Nurses & Midwives Organisation opting to represent their own members only to the detriment of other union members. Consequently, we have some unions fighting other trades unions instead of uniting against unfair attacks from government, SMEs etc

Easy targets will always be easy targets.
 
Ha - classic Complainer deflection! I know and you know that the following:
Let's get rid of the €11.4 billion in tax reliefs for middle and high earners for a start
... will not rear its untrue head in your posts again. My work here is done.
 
Ah you poor pets..
You should try get net nanny or something similar to filter out all the negative things that people are saying about the PS.With no reason!! They are just picking on ye..

Just as well the rest of us aren't so sensitive!
Mind you if it looks like a duck,walks like a duck,quacks like a duck......
 
Ha - classic Complainer deflection! I know and you know that the following:... will not rear its untrue head in your posts again. My work here is done.

It's a bit sad to see that people seem to be unable to debate the issues.
 
Pot and kettle come to mind!

For what its worth every-time any poster has a legitimate concern about how the PS is run/how much it costs/lack of productivity/time off for non existent cheques/time wasters/security of jobs/pensions/demands etc there is always a defence put forward by a select few.

In fairness so many people complain about the PS that there is a fair chance that a lot of it is true,.

Consistently denying there are problems that must be addressed is just plain irritating.Not acknowledging there are any problems is wrong.

Acknowledging there is a problem is the first step on the road to recovery!

For the record, I do not blame anyone in the PS for taking all they are legitimately given by the government,you would have to be off your head to refuse a pay increase/time off/increments etc.
I blame the government for bowing to the vested interests that caused this issue in the first place.
We can compare the PS to the Private sector all we want ,but this is comparing apples and oranges,until the PS for example can be sacked and are sacked and are seen to be sacked there will never be any incentive to provide the same level of service which those in the Private sector must do or face the consequences.
 
Consistently denying there are problems that must be addressed is just plain irritating.Not acknowledging there are any problems is wrong.
And who has been doing this 'denying there are problems'?

What is this obsession with sackings? You do realise that sackings are a sign that;
1) You are bad at recruiting people
2) You are bad at managing performance

Why do you see sackings as a positive?
 

One glaring reason is that I cannot afford to pay any more for a PRSA with a better return - that was my point.

Becky admits her pension is 'alright' - I'll warrant it's a bit better than alright, certainly better than mine, costs her a lot less, and is guaranteed - which mine isn't.
 
One glaring reason is that I cannot afford to pay any more for a PRSA with a better return - that was my point.
I don't understand this. The return isn't related to how much you put. The return is related to the investment strategy of the funds you invest in. It's a percentage, regardless of how much you put in.

Becky admits her pension is 'alright' - I'll warrant it's a bit better than alright, certainly better than mine, costs her a lot less, and is guaranteed - which mine isn't.

There is no guarantee for public sector pensions. They are at the discretion of the Govt of the day.
 
'Return' is maybe the wrong word. What I'm getting at is, the more you contribute now, the more you will get come retirement - hopefully.

I can't afford to contribute any more than I am already.
 
'Return' is maybe the wrong word. What I'm getting at is, the more you contribute now, the more you will get come retirement - hopefully.

I can't afford to contribute any more than I am already.
OK, now I get it. And many of us (public sector and private sector) are in the same boat.
 

With the state bankrupt Becky's pension it is not safe anymore
 
Tell that to the pensioners who found out half an hour ago that their pensions will be cut.