ICTU have called a National Strike over the economy. Do you support it?

[Billys Boots]

It just taken them until now to have the opportunity to implement their power.

And that is exactly (and only) what is happening.

[criostlinn]

This is a bit of a side issue but its something ive been wondering about.

Ive read in a few places that for somebody in the private sector to get a pension equal to a public sector pension they would have to contribute approx 25% of there wages and work for about 45 years up to 65.

Now this is my question. If I was on say about 800 a week. I contribute 360 into a pension. If im on 42% tax, because my contribution is tax deductable this becomes 200 which is 25% of my pay.

360 x52 = 18720. per year
18720 X 45 = 842400.

If this money was kept in a low interest account all this time. It would add up to a lot more.

Are my figures totally arseways or am I missing something

Are public service pensions really worth this kinda money or where does this 25%  figure come from

[playwiththewind1st]

Public sector pensions are usually invested in different types of assets & very little would be kept in a low interest account - they would keep a bit of cash for current pensions in payment, but the rest is invested in property [forests, even!], stocks, bonds etc. to give growth [or that was the theory before the present mess].

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

Whilst acknowledging the futility of holding a strike in the current economic climate, is it not the case that the "strike" is being called to voice the publics disgust at the Governments handling of the economic crisis, rather then at the "levy"?

[Lone Shark]

This is a bit of a side issue but its something ive been wondering about.

Ive read in a few places that for somebody in the private sector to get a pension equal to a public sector pension they would have to contribute approx 25% of there wages and work for about 45 years up to 65.

Now this is my question. If I was on say about 800 a week. I contribute 360 into a pension. If im on 42% tax, because my contribution is tax deductable this becomes 200 which is 25% of my pay.

360 x52 = 18720. per year
18720 X 45 = 842400.

If this money was kept in a low interest account all this time. It would add up to a lot more.

Are my figures totally arseways or am I missing something

Are public service pensions really worth this kinda money or where does this 25%  figure come from

On 800 a week you'd be putting in more because feck all of your waged would be at the higher rate of tax. Also you have to allow for the cost of the annuity at the end (Am I right in saying it's a years pay or some such?) plus the fact that inflation up along PLUS AFTER YOU RETIRE has to be kept pace with.

The huge anomaly with this pension is that it moves to keep pace with salary changes, which is unlike any other - essentially you are pegged to whatever your modern day equivalent earns, rather than what you earned yourself.

25% is probably fair enough - presuming the public servant retired at 65. With early retirement and buying of years etc, it's actually worth even more. Of course the unions are insistent that fair actuarial valuations of these pensions are not allowed, plus the state won't allow it either because nobody wants to open that particular can of worms.

[Gnevin]

Whilst acknowledging the futility of holding a strike in the current economic climate, is it not the case that the "strike" is being called to voice the publics disgust at the Governments handling of the economic crisis, rather then at the "levy"?

ICTU would support people going out because the sky isn't blue at the moment.

[criostlinn]

This is a bit of a side issue but its something ive been wondering about.

Ive read in a few places that for somebody in the private sector to get a pension equal to a public sector pension they would have to contribute approx 25% of there wages and work for about 45 years up to 65.

Now this is my question. If I was on say about 800 a week. I contribute 360 into a pension. If im on 42% tax, because my contribution is tax deductable this becomes 200 which is 25% of my pay.

360 x52 = 18720. per year
18720 X 45 = 842400.

If this money was kept in a low interest account all this time. It would add up to a lot more.

Are my figures totally arseways or am I missing something

Are public service pensions really worth this kinda money or where does this 25%  figure come from

On 800 a week you'd be putting in more because feck all of your waged would be at the higher rate of tax. Also you have to allow for the cost of the annuity at the end (Am I right in saying it's a years pay or some such?) plus the fact that inflation up along PLUS AFTER YOU RETIRE has to be kept pace with.

The huge anomaly with this pension is that it moves to keep pace with salary changes, which is unlike any other - essentially you are pegged to whatever your modern day equivalent earns, rather than what you earned yourself.

25% is probably fair enough - presuming the public servant retired at 65. With early retirement and buying of years etc, it's actually worth even more. Of course the unions are insistent that fair actuarial valuations of these pensions are not allowed, plus the state won't allow it either because nobody wants to open that particular can of worms.

on 800 how much would your pension contribution be at 25% of pay.  Annuity at one year would be 41,000.
Am I not right in saying that pension contributions would also increase with salary changes.

The question im asking is if I worked in the private sector and  had contributed about 800,000 over 45 years. My finishing pay was 800 and my pension ended up at half of this 400. Even after annuity I would have 35 years living before it would go over my contributions.

I know im making this sound very simplistic and am probably missing something but I dont really understand the figure of 25%

[criostlinn]

I know  the private sector  is getting hit a hell of a lot harder

I agree with you TyroneFan.
Its the very wealthy and rich that seem to be getting off scot free

Would you propose we do about it then?

Would a fairer and more simple system not be to increase taxes.

All public service workers would be hit
All private sector workers who are still working would be hit.
Anyone who has taken pay cuts would be hit less.
Anyone who lost there jobs would not be hit.
The people who are making the big money could be hit more

[Gnevin]

I know  the private sector  is getting hit a hell of a lot harder

I agree with you TyroneFan.
Its the very wealthy and rich that seem to be getting off scot free

Would you propose we do about it then?

Would a fairer and more simple system not be to increase taxes.

All public service workers would be hit
All private sector workers who are still working would be hit.
Anyone who has taken pay cuts would be hit less.
Anyone who lost there jobs would not be hit.
The people who are making the big money could be hit more

It would be fairer and I don't know why the Unions didn't push for this

[FermGael]

Cry on the other shoulder will you. You chose to become a teacher , don't like it ? Change job. Did the wage increase you though you should be getting include 3 months off during the year? Does it include your great pension? Does it include your job for life factor?

GNevin we could argue all day about this.  You obviously feel that teaching is a handy number.  
Try it for a week and then come back and post.
I will say one thing though on teaching though.  Compared to my wages here in the North, teachers in the republic earn an awful lot more

Don't cry to me that the public sector is the public sector, you knew what you where signing up for.

Sure the private sector is the private sector.  You knew what you were signing up for by that logic as well.

The government pays the wages in the public sector and just was private sector employers need to make savings the public sector employer needs to make the same savings.

I agree with you on this.  But my onus would be on levying all sections of society equally.   That is not being done.
Why wait until 6 months down the road to do it??  Do it now and at least we all suffer together.

[An Gaeilgoir]

I know  the private sector  is getting hit a hell of a lot harder

I agree with you TyroneFan.
Its the very wealthy and rich that seem to be getting off scot free

Would you propose we do about it then?

Would a fairer and more simple system not be to increase taxes.

All public service workers would be hit
All private sector workers who are still working would be hit.
Anyone who has taken pay cuts would be hit less.
Anyone who lost there jobs would not be hit.
The people who are making the big money could be hit more

It would be fairer and I don't know why the Unions didn't push for this

One of the reasons i think, why the unions wont push for this at the moment is they now can get back to what unions are good at, strikes, unrest etc. the trade union movement was losing workers hand over fist, especially in the private sector over the past ten years, they now have a ripe recruiting ground and lets not kid ourselves, the leaders of the Irish trade union serve themselves first with workers in second place. If the unions were really concerned about workers, why dont they abolish their subs for one year to help their members in the difficult times, take a pay cut (most of them earn 100k plus) or stop serving on Government boards i.e Aer Lingus, Irish Rail, ESB (another 20 k). Of course they wont, they want to keep their show on the road regardless of the plight of their members. let the "Fairness" start in their own organisations first!

[Gnevin]

Cry on the other shoulder will you. You chose to become a teacher , don't like it ? Change job. Did the wage increase you though you should be getting include 3 months off during the year? Does it include your great pension? Does it include your job for life factor?

GNevin we could argue all day about this.  You obviously feel that teaching is a handy number.  
Try it for a week and then come back and post.
I will say one thing though on teaching though.  Compared to my wages here in the North, teachers in the republic earn an awful lot more

I don't feel it's a handy number but like all job its has it's perks and teachings perks are rather nice . I  was called out of bed at 7.00 today to sort a problem, still haven't have lunch and won't get paid for it but in other ways I make up for it

Don't cry to me that the public sector is the public sector, you knew what you where signing up for.

Sure the private sector is the private sector.  You knew what you were signing up for by that logic as well.

Yes but I'm not the one complaining about the fact that my friends in the public sector have it handy and got lots of money.

The government pays the wages in the public sector and just was private sector employers need to make savings the public sector employer needs to make the same savings.

I agree with you on this.  But my onus would be on levying all sections of society equally.   That is not being done.
Why wait until 6 months down the road to do it??  Do it now and at least we all suffer together.

[Lar Naparka]

This is a bit of a side issue but its something ive been wondering about.

Ive read in a few places that for somebody in the private sector to get a pension equal to a public sector pension they would have to contribute approx 25% of there wages and work for about 45 years up to 65.

Now this is my question. If I was on say about 800 a week. I contribute 360 into a pension. If im on 42% tax, because my contribution is tax deductable this becomes 200 which is 25% of my pay.

360 x52 = 18720. per year
18720 X 45 = 842400.

If this money was kept in a low interest account all this time. It would add up to a lot more.

Are my figures totally arseways or am I missing something

Are public service pensions really worth this kinda money or where does this 25%  figure come from

On 800 a week you'd be putting in more because feck all of your waged would be at the higher rate of tax. Also you have to allow for the cost of the annuity at the end (Am I right in saying it's a years pay or some such?) plus the fact that inflation up along PLUS AFTER YOU RETIRE has to be kept pace with.

The huge anomaly with this pension is that it moves to keep pace with salary changes, which is unlike any other - essentially you are pegged to whatever your modern day equivalent earns, rather than what you earned yourself.

25% is probably fair enough - presuming the public servant retired at 65. With early retirement and buying of years etc, it's actually worth even more. Of course the unions are insistent that fair actuarial valuations of these pensions are not allowed, plus the state won't allow it either because nobody wants to open that particular can of worms.

That's a fine summation.
If I ever need the services  of a loan shark, I know where to call.

[Main Street]

Cry on the other shoulder will you. You chose to become a teacher , don't like it ? Change job. Did the wage increase you though you should be getting include 3 months off during the year? Does it include your great pension? Does it include your job for life factor?

GNevin we could argue all day about this.  You obviously feel that teaching is a handy number.  
Try it for a week and then come back and post.
I will say one thing though on teaching though.  Compared to my wages here in the North, teachers in the republic earn an awful lot more

Do you have a job for life as Gnevin alludes to?
or are you on a contract which is renewed yearly or otherwise by the school which employs you?
Surely also there is a procedure to deal with teachers who are clearly not up to their job?

[FermGael]

Cry on the other shoulder will you. You chose to become a teacher , don't like it ? Change job. Did the wage increase you though you should be getting include 3 months off during the year? Does it include your great pension? Does it include your job for life factor?

GNevin we could argue all day about this.  You obviously feel that teaching is a handy number.  
Try it for a week and then come back and post.
I will say one thing though on teaching though.  Compared to my wages here in the North, teachers in the republic earn an awful lot more

Do you have a job for life as Gnevin alludes to?
or are you on a contract which is renewed yearly or otherwise by the school which employs you?
Surely also there is a procedure to deal with teachers who are clearly not up to their job?

I spent my first 2 years on temporary contracts in the same school. 
There then was a permanent job in my subject area, i applied and got it.

It is extremely difficult to get rid of teachers who are not up to their jobs.