Public sector V Public sector

You cut your coat by your clothe, so as the hospitality industry couldn't afford to trade on Sundays unless the double pay was changed back to normal it's the same for the public service. That was changed without any big debate here or elsewhere. Funny how hospitality staff (Probably lowly paid) just accept this and get on with it.
Sunny why do you think splitting Sunday into 2 halves has not been spoken about by the unions?
Foxy Lady. From the point of view outside the Public service your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire (guaranteed). The anomoly to others is the fact that it was not this way all along, as is the case for people paying into unguaranteed pensions in the private sector.
I think it's great if you have the luxury to choose when you can or dont want to work and thus not work Sundays. For anyone else if your employer cant afford to pay it (Public or Private) you should maybe choose a different career or get a job for Intel, apparently.
Another thing, for years Unions were getting pay rises harping on twice yearly about inflation levels and their percentages should reflect increases for members. Now we have deflation there's not a mention. One union official was even quoted as say it was an 'unreal' figure. Absolute nuts.
Again 500m a week borrowing is making the country bankrupt.
 
Ceatharlach said:
You cut your coat by your clothe,
Click to expand...

The problem with this govt is that it will cut the arms off the coat and a big hole in the back of it.

Ceatharlach said:
Foxy Lady. From the point of view outside the Public service your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire (guaranteed)
Click to expand...

Good Grief Ceatharlach, how many times do you have to be told.

The pension Levy does not go towards any pension fund for the Public service

It is a tax for working in the Public Service

You gain no value from it at retirement

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding on the issue
 
S.L.F said:
The pension Levy does not go towards any pension fund for the Public service

It is a tax for working in the Public Service

You gain no value from it at retirement
Click to expand...
crap! The guaranteed, market proof public sector pension has to be paid for from investments in the non-guaranteed vulnerable market using taxpayers money. Any shortfalls have to be made up using more tax payers money. Hence the levy to prop up public sector guaranteed pensions.

As a private sector worker I get no such guaranteed pension, I take my lumps in the market. Hence no levy for me. I'd love a public sector pension - levy or not and consider a 7% hit on pay an acceptable price to pay for that guarantee
 
S.L.F said:
The pension Levy does not go towards any pension fund for the Public service

It is a tax for working in the Public Service

You gain no value from it at retirement
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that doesn't contradict what Ceatharlach said.
 
See...it's easy to understand, even if you don't want to...
 
Caveat said:
Maybe, but that doesn't contradict what Ceatharlach said.
Click to expand...

Yes it does!

What he (or she) said was, "your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire (guaranteed)"

This is totally false.

Ceatharlach said:
your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire (guaranteed).
Click to expand...

galleyslave said:
Hence the levy to prop up public sector guaranteed pensions.
Click to expand...

The Pension Levy doesn't go towards the pension fund.
 
S.L.F said:
The Pension Levy doesn't go towards the pension fund.
Click to expand...

Public sector pensions are paid out of central government current account coffers. The pension levy goes into central government coffers therefore it is quite logical to say that the pension levy is a payment toward public sector pensions.
 
S.L.F said:
Yes it does!

What he (or she) said was, "your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire (guaranteed)"

This is totally false.

The Pension Levy doesn't go towards the pension fund.
Click to expand...

OK, when you put it like that - fair enough.

The bottom line is that PS workers are paying more for their pension. But still less than the average private sector worker pays for their pension and they get a far better pension. Yes there are exceptions to this but if you take a PS worker earning say 35K and a private sector worker earning the same, the private sector worker would have to pay a very high percentage of their salary to get the equivalent PS pension.

E.g. From http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/.../bl100vol1.pdf

Given the above arrangements, the Group observes that the annual cost of purchasing similar pension arrangements (including the earnings-linking of pension benefits) in the private sector would be very high indeed: ranging from around 27% of annual salary in the case of a typical civil servant employed prior to 2004 to 31% for a teacher entitled to retire at age 55; 33% for a hospital consultant; 48% in the case of a Garda member; and as high as 87% of annual salary in the case of a High Court judge. The cost of providing similar benefits in a Defined Contribution arrangement, which is more generally applicable in the private sector, would be significantly higher in all cases. "

None of us can change what the government do with this levy 'saving'. Call it a tax if you like but we all pay them and I for one certainly don't like the way some of my tax revenue is used - not much I can do about it though. Any PS worker feeling hard done by should contact a broker advising the details of their pension and find out how much it would cost them if they were to make their own pension arrangements.

Better still, form a lobby group, protest, and demand that they be allowed to make their own pension arrangements - I don't think there would be too many volunteers.
 
Purple said:
Public sector pensions are paid out of central government current account coffers. The pension levy goes into central government coffers therefore it is quite logical to say that the pension levy is a payment toward public sector pensions.
Click to expand...

However, Public and Civil servants both permanent and temporary pay this levy, do they get anything extra for it?

Temporary staff are worse off because they get nothing at all

Caveat said:
The bottom line is that PS workers are paying more for their pension. .
Click to expand...

*Exasperated Sigh*

Once again...

The pension levy has nothing to do with pension if it had then people who were temporary would not have to pay it.

Just on a side issue about pensions and all that, if PS workers had the choice to put 6.5% of their salary into the Post Office for 40 years would they be better off than going with the pension arrangments in place.
 
S.L.F said:
*Exasperated Sigh*

Once again...

The pension levy has nothing to do with pension if it had then people who were temporary would not have to pay it.
Click to expand...

And once again (including an exasperated sigh from me too) it's not the point. It all comes back to a simple fact - The 'employer' of PS workers, the dept. of finance, cannot afford to pay it's workers.

In the private sector this means (and continues to mean) lay offs, paycuts, closure of businesses.

The government had to reduce the amount of money it is hemorrhaging to the PS payroll. To ensure that PS pensions are not as heavily subsidised was the method they chose - for now.

The pension levy does not affect gross pay therefore it is not a pay cut.

If it was simply called PS tax (or something) would you be happier - what I mean is, is your issue the deception/sneakiness (as you maybe see it) of the terminology or the fact that the government even touched the PS?
 
SLF just wont admit thats its fair to pay more for a guaranteed pension. If he does, his whole argument crumbles to dust
 

*2 exasperated sighs*

*kick the cat out the window*

*MMmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooowwwwwwwww*

I was answering a post by another poster about what the pension levy was about he said it goes into the pension fund where in fact it does not.

If the govt had just given the PS a pay cut then all the various people who are on pensions whould have had their pensions cut because their pensions are linked to wages in the PS, so yes you are correct it was a sneaky move on their part, they fear the grey vote and rightly so
 
galleyslave said:
SLF just wont admit thats its fair to pay more for a guaranteed pension. If he does, his whole argument crumbles to dust
Click to expand...

Do you mean the temporary contract staff, who pay for it and don't get a pension, do you?

*looks about*

Nope nothing crumbling here
 
S.L.F. - you're really doing yourself no favours.
I read this as a private sector worker. I've watched good colleagues be made redundant. Our employer makes no contribution at all to our pensions - we'll get out what we put in, no more and no less, and it will have nothing to do with what our salary is.

It took me over 10 years of unpaid overtime etc to get to around the average industrial wage but in the last 10 months I've had to take 2 x 10% pay cuts and also unpaid leave to try to avoid further redundancies. Because of that many in this office have had to take mortgage holidays or go interest only and also cut the % they contribute to their pensions (those of us who have one). Thems the facts of life in the current climate and we ALL have to do it. You can call the 7% what you like, that's just semantics, it still balances against a pension you get at retirement I can only dream of and that 7% is the difference between your taxes and mine so hopefully that means my taxes are contributing less now towards your pension.

PS - we never get a Christmas bonus or party so there's none of that frivolity to be cancelled.
 
Caveat said:
The pension levy does not affect gross pay therefore it is not a pay cut.
Click to expand...
That would be a (mischievously?) technical interpretation of the levy. It is, in the real world, indeed a pay cut, a sleight of hand on the part of the Government which introduces a PS pay cut without upsetting retired former PS workers and avoids any legal difficulties that a blunt pay cut might herald. It doesn't balance against one's pension at retirement. It goes into Government coffers and on towards paying current PS pensions, which are pay-as-you-go (a giant pyramid scheme). Your taxes don't contribute a cent to current PS workers future pensions.
 
S.L.F said:
Do you mean the temporary contract staff, who pay for it and don't get a pension, do you?

*looks about*

Nope nothing crumbling here
Click to expand...

irrelevant. You are constructing your argument on the basis that an the status of temp workers invalidates the fundamental thesis - said thesis being that public sector workers get a great perk in their guaranteed pensions and this is simply not affordable any more. The fact that temp workers have to pay it is irrelevant. The trough if empty and to fill it requires more cash. If the public service wants these great pensions then they have to pay for them.

Here's a thought. Accept the fact that the country is screwed. Forget playing the blame game and instead accept some pain and work towards fixing things. I've yet to hear a public sector worker say - ah sure I'd give up the guaranteed pension and accept a pension similar to the private sector in return for my levy... I think thats telling...
 

This was your post now if I remove all the stuff that is off topic or totally untrue what will be left

Round Tuit said:
S.L.F...
Click to expand...

I don't work for the govt nor any semi-state agency just as you have jumped to conclusions about me I suggest you have jumped to conclusions about the Public Sector
 
galleyslave said:
SLF just wont admit thats its fair to pay more for a guaranteed pension. If he does, his whole argument crumbles to dust
Click to expand...

Maybe so but the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions and I have proved that in that part time staff who pay the pension levy get nothing for it.

Caveat said:
The government had to reduce the amount of money it is hemorrhaging to the PS payroll. To ensure that PS pensions are not as heavily subsidised was the method they chose - for now.
Click to expand...

If our govt gave a rats-ass about that they would have just put a pay cut across the board then not only would they be paying less wages but less pensions to PS pensioners and that would have saved far more


You said earlier that a hit of 7% on pay acceptable for a guaranteed pension but they are already paying 6.5% so it increases to 13.5% over 40 years.

Would 13.5% put into a post office for 40 years not be a better option?
 
S.L.F said:
You said earlier that a hit of 7% on pay acceptable for a guaranteed pension but they are already paying 6.5% so it increases to 13.5% over 40 years.

Would 13.5% put into a post office for 40 years not be a better option?
Click to expand...

Im guessing you mean they already pay 6.5% into a pension pot. The thing is however, for example I pay into a pension pot. now if we both pay 6.5. I'm at the mercy of the market as to what I get back and after being through 3 stock market crashes in 20 years (.com bust, 9/11 and now) I can assure you I've lost a lot of the paltry pension I have. The public sector worker on the other hand has a guaranteed payout regardless of stock market conditions. I think thats worth the extra 7%
 
S.L.F said:
Maybe so but the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions and I have proved that in that part time staff who pay the pension levy get nothing for it.
Click to expand...
it has to do with it in the fact that the pension has to be paid for from public funds. Funds which are incapable of meeting the bill. Ergo, the levies and cuts and tax increases etc that we are all facing in one way or another.

Also, part time staff would have pensions. Temp. staff may not. Temp staff however who are employed for 3 years (if I recall correctly) can apply for a variety of positions the general public cannot, so they do get opportunities not open to everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register