candide wrote:

This public servant did pay for a pension, 6.5 % for 34 years. Not enough for a full pension. Most colleagues who could afford it took out AVCs, additional voluntary contributions, a form of private pension in order to make up the difference or they paid for additional years into their pension where eligible. I wasn't eligible.

We also pay an income continuance plan privately to protect against loss of employment through illness and we pay PRSI, having paid the full rate for many years.

I know contributions are made, but nothing like the full cost of the pension. In the private sector you would have to put away, in addition to your full PRSI, 28/30% of your wages for 40 years to get a pension as good as a full public service pension.
It's a great pension, would that everyone could have one, but the reality is that at the moment the rest of us, the 80% of taxpayers, simply can't afford to fund the wonderful pensions of the remaining 20%.

If public service workers want to hold on to their very good pension, they'll just have to make a greater contribution themselves, the rest of us will still fund the bulk of it, but the main beneficiaries themselves have to front up a bit more now.

I'm paying 11% at the moment, which is proving itself to be completely inadequate, as my recent statement predicted a pension of 20% of final salary. That sucks.

So I agree with tonys, it is a massive benefit with completely inadequate contribution from the employee. Coupled with the Class D PRSI and the leave entitlements and job security and everything else, it is to cosy a setup, one which the country can no longer afford. Or never could afford imo.

It is the height of foolishness to be paying into a private pension plan. As regards the civil service pensions, well forget about them because they gave that money to the banks if I understand things correctly. There are 2 chances of getting that back

The latest is that we will all have to work until 70/80/90 before we will have enough to retire on. I hope to stay fit and drop in the harness as its my best chance of an income for life.

tonys, you are very selective. I thought that Fianna Fail had moved on from public sector worker bashing since Saturday and now it is the bankers who are to blame for everything.

Private sector pension tax reliefs in the past ten years have allowed wealthy people to salt away millions tax free. Was last year not the first year there was any upper limit on the amount they could put in a pension with 40% reliefs? The Regulator bless him just took early retirement on a public sector pension of €145,000 odd a year "because he's worth it".

There are other people who retire from the public service with pensions of less than €15,000.

The public sector pension for higher paid public servants is still imo a very expensive and unfair provision, that is paid for by private sector people through their taxes, some of whom cant afford a pension themselves at all.

A lot of private sector pensions are a rip off, with a lot of the contributions being mopped up as commission.

Why not stop all these schemes and have a taxation funded State pension for everyone good enough to live on, and let anyone who wants to top it up do so without tax relief?

cactus flower wrote:

The latest is that we will all have to work until 70/80/90 before we will have enough to retire on. I hope to stay fit and drop in the harness as its my best chance of an income for life.

tonys, you are very selective. I thought that Fianna Fail had moved on from public sector worker bashing since Saturday and now it is the bankers who are to blame for everything. No I don't think so, that's just an impression you're happy to get.

Private sector pension tax reliefs in the past ten years have allowed wealthy people to salt away millions tax free. Was last year not the first year there was any upper limit on the amount they could put in a pension with 40% reliefs? The Regulator bless him just took early retirement on a public sector pension of €145,000 odd a year "because he's worth it". 1. Public sector workers are also entitled to the same pension tax reliefs as private sector workers, they just don't have the same need of them. 2. Whatever pension tax reliefs are used at least they are used on the back of peoples own money, which is fair enough.

There are other people who retire from the public service with pensions of less than €15,000. There are many in the private sector, up to 50% of them, who have no pension at all, so while 15,000 may not be a fortune, it's better than a poke in the eye.

The public sector pension for higher paid public servants is still imo a very expensive and unfair provision, that is paid for by private sector people through their taxes, some of whom cant afford a pension themselves at all. True, but not just for the higher paid, at the very least you could say the same for those on the public service average.

A lot of private sector pensions are a rip off, with a lot of the contributions being mopped up as commission.

Why not stop all these schemes and have a taxation funded State pension for everyone good enough to live on, and let anyone who wants to top it up do so without tax relief?

Most private sector workers would not have a problem with that particularly if there was an opt out available, but as the public sector are up in arms over making a small contribution to their own pension, aided by the likes of yourself, the mind boggles to think what their reaction would be if they were ever asked to actually pay for the full benefit.

Dan is right. Pensions are for mugs. Does anyone seriously think these companies will still be around in 20 or 30 years? These pensions are a gold plated luxury we can no longer afford (not that we ever could). We need to move to a universal social insurance model where everyone is looked after in their dotage. If people are fit to work at 70, why shouldn't they? If they want to go and play golf for 6 months of the year that's great if they have the resources to do so, but they can't be expecting the taxpayer to fund or subsidise it. Public service pensions should be taxed savagely, particularly those on more than the average wage. There are retired public servants now earning more on their pensions that they did while working. That is insane. WTF does a pensioner with no dependant children and no mortgage need with €50k a year, when our children are being educated in damp portakabins?

How else can I save money for retirement without paying all that tax ? It's that tax relief that makes it attractive.

Also, pension managers are supposed to take your fund out of equities with 3-4 years ago and put it into safer funds are they not ?

Well that's your own business EVM. The State needs to collect sufficient taxes to ensure everyone is looked after once they are no longer fit for work. Any additional arrangements you want to make are fine, but as things stand we have elderly people living in poverty while ex-civil servants are pulling down six figure pensions. It's not just. If the pension levy is applied to private sector pensions (as it inevitably will be) people will just not bother with pensions. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush after all. Why starve today to put off starving 30 years from now?

tonys wrote:

candide wrote:

This public servant did pay for a pension, 6.5 % for 34 years. Not enough for a full pension. Most colleagues who could afford it took out AVCs, additional voluntary contributions, a form of private pension in order to make up the difference or they paid for additional years into their pension where eligible. I wasn't eligible.

We also pay an income continuance plan privately to protect against loss of employment through illness and we pay PRSI, having paid the full rate for many years.

I know contributions are made, but nothing like the full cost of the pension. In the private sector you would have to put away, in addition to your full PRSI, 28/30% of your wages for 40 years to get a pension as good as a full public service pension.
It's a great pension, would that everyone could have one, but the reality is that at the moment the rest of us, the 80% of taxpayers, simply can't afford to fund the wonderful pensions of the remaining 20%.

If public service workers want to hold on to their very good pension, they'll just have to make a greater contribution themselves, the rest of us will still fund the bulk of it, but the main beneficiaries themselves have to front up a bit more now.

I think you may be missing the point tonys. I understand that not all public servants get defined benefit pensions. Some public sectors pay for and get defined contribution pensions. These self same public servants have to pay the "pension levy". The truth is that it is a pay cut.

Calling it a "pension levy" was supposed to be a palliative for unions, guaranteeing that future pensions would not be affected. However, the nomenclature is offensive to people who are already paying for a defined contribution pension. Their pension will not be linked to their wage so the notion of a pension levy is a bit of a sick joke. The truth is that these people should take cuts not because they get a good pension but because the country simply cannot afford to pay them.

Is there a way out of the Recession?

Mary Harney, James Reilly and three others are on now.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Is there a way out of the Recession?

Mary Harney, James Reilly and three others are on now.

Of course there is. The simple necessity for firms to re-invest in getting new capital equipment is an encouragement to the economy to recover at some point in the future.

That economist is stealing my analogy about intensive care!

Wouldn't Reilly give you a pain in your face.
To listen to him cry his crocodile tears over the public service levy when for months before it was introduced Enda was lacerating the public service for all he was worth, but now that he sees the wind blowing to Labour he sends the beard out in sympathy. It's enough to give an infant a bout of projectile vomit.

Damn right from Ronan Fanning just there. I used to have decent chats with him from time to time in the History Department at UCD. He just pointed out that Jack Lynch, whilst Taoiseach, refused to make use of helicopters pointed out that they were "too flash". Our Government, he contends and I agree, need to realise what "too flash" means.

johnfás wrote:

Damn right from Ronan Fanning just there. I used to have decent chats with him from time to time in the History Department at UCD. He just pointed out that Jack Lynch, whilst Taoiseach, refused to make use of helicopters pointed out that they were "too flash". Our Government, he contends and I agree, need to realise what "too flash" means.

That's it - everything is too flash though. €84000 last year was spent on rides in "the chopper". Noel Dempsey, Willie o'Dea, Micheál Martin, Dermot Ahern, Martin Cullen were regular enough users of it. Willie O'Dea got picked up outside his house in Limerick a few times when he needed to be taken to the Dáil.

And is there any serious defence of these exorbitant consultant contracts - I think it's freaky - we're paying them up to 3 times as much as they get in Europe and the UK - it's indefensible.

johnfás wrote:

Damn right from Ronan Fanning just there. I used to have decent chats with him from time to time in the History Department at UCD. He just pointed out that Jack Lynch, whilst Taoiseach, refused to make use of helicopters pointed out that they were "too flash". Our Government, he contends and I agree, need to realise what "too flash" means.

In Jack Lynch's day ministers didn't do 4 or 5 functions a day, in different parts of the country. I think it was disappointing, not to say worrying, to hear such an experienced person taking, what I would consider, such a narrow populist view.

tonys what about teleconferencing ? is that practical, useful, used at all. 84k last year on such rides is a fair old figure.

Is Cowen taking the Government jet to New York and Washington DC, tonys? Why is this necessary, we have multiple direct flights daily to New York from Dublin and there is a direct flight from Washington DC to Dublin as well, the man can travel business class. Perhaps he thinks he'll be looked down upon unless he arrives in his mini learjet? Perhaps the 3 teachers that the cost of that private jet journey would pay for a year would have a different take on that issue.

Would you not agree that we need to eliminate waste, tonys? That is how business succeeds. That is how our success stories such as Ryanair were able to create world beating companies and it is how many businesses are now coping with the recession. Perhaps the Government have failed to grasp that yet.

Someone explained the other day that the air corps, since the air sea rescue service was privatised at great cost out to some Canadians, is pretty well exclusively devoted to providing a taxis service for ministers and playing tiddly winks. They cost 30 million per annum.

It has new helicopters, with winches.

Is Bertie still getting 35,000 a year for his makeup? Does Brian get that now?

johnfás wrote:

Is Cowen taking the Government jet to New York and Washington DC, tonys? Why is this necessary, we have multiple direct flights daily to New York from Dublin and there is a direct flight from Washington DC to Dublin as well, the man can travel business class. Perhaps he thinks he'll be looked down upon unless he arrives in his mini learjet? Perhaps the 3 teachers that the cost of that private jet journey would pay for a year would have a different take on that issue.

Would you not agree that we need to eliminate waste, tonys?

I don't know whether he is or not. I don't know how many people are going with him, I don't know who or how many they intend to meet over the few days, I don’t know what level of security is required, and I don’t know who provides that security. I don't know a lot of things and I suspect neither do most people, even people who have their minds made up on the issue of relative costs as between private or commercial travel.

cactus flower wrote:

Is Bertie still getting 35,000 a year for his makeup? Does Brian get that now?

This sort of nonsense is just petty and adds nothing to any economic debate. People need to wake up, stow their pet likes & dislikes and try to see the big picture here.

Cancel that, they don't need to see anything, we're just making a small amount of noise on a web site.

It costs 8,000 an hour, in fuel alone, to keep the Government Gulfstream which has a capacity of 14 passengers, in the air. A Gulfstream can cruise at 90% of the speed of an Airbus A330 meaning the journey duration of a flight between Dublin and New York is approximately 8.5 hours. Multiplying that out means that the fuel cost alone for the 14 passengers is €68,000 each way or €136,000 return, this is ignoring landing charges and other ancillary charges such as renting a space on the tarmac for the week at a major US airport, one could conservatively put the cost of the overall exercise at over €150,000.

The cost of booking 14 return business class fares with Aer Lingus even at this late stage would be 38,000. Frankly all 14 of them don't need to go Business Class anyway but we'll allow the Taoiseach and a couple of bodyguards the pleasure.

If we're going to describe every bit of waste as petty we may as well give up. The whole point about waste is that each bit is petty, you need to go down through expenses with a comb and cut every bit of waste out... you will then realise what these figures add together to bring about. I was speaking to a Chartered Accountant last week who cut half a million out of his business with no job losses simply by cutting waste and minor adjustments to salaries. The cost of two water dispensers alone was €2,000+ annually.

They're not capable johnfas. They don't have any concept of value for money. Public money is just treated as victors spoils.

Did ye listen to Máirín Quill afterwards - co-founder of the PDs - she was talking one to one with Cathal MacCoille ... she had things to say about politicians cutting expenses, showing leadership, that if you want to bring your people along in difficult times it's better when the electorate don't have the perception of 'top-heaviness'.

johnfás wrote:

It costs 8,000 an hour, in fuel alone, to keep the Government Gulfstream which has a capacity of 14 passengers, in the air.

Can you back that up Johnfas? Is that the cost at cruising altitude? I am no expert but it sounds way off the mark to me.