LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYes - he would be, but still waaay too much money when you think the average wage for a working person (who probably has mortgage and children) is about 33k.Originally Posted by DCon
Yes - he would be, but still waaay too much money when you think the average wage for a working person (who probably has mortgage and children) is about 33k.
true, plus the tax does not contribute to the State coffers. He just gets paid net of tax.
I get paid less than €400 nett a week performing in a highly stressful environment in a very efficient manner as all of my performance reviews testify to... I make no apology, for earning a very generous pension my service more than deserves at the end of my career, to rabble rousers like Jurisprudence who seems to get a kick out of inciting hatred.
However I'm used to facing ignorant twits with chips on both shoulders so its like water off a ducks back...
Here ya go. Its the legal definition of incitement to hatred in the Irish Republic.
Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989
What you don't like is criticism, which is what your getting and shall continue to get so long as our constitution respects freedom of expression and issues such as the private sector paying for public sector perks continues. Read the above and you'll see what I said does not constitute incitement to hatred. You cannot disagree with the SC unless you have a better definition. I'm sure you do. I get a kick from seeing justice done, not theft from hard working people, public or private.
Your €400 net is obviously after tax, after levy. But it does not reflect payments made from my gross producing my net which includes payment made to public servants for a pension I nor anyone in the private sector shall benefit from, despite having worked for that money.
Your obviously ignorant to the realities many face in this country. I have no chip, just a higher sense of patriotism in these horrific times than someone like you. But I'm sure you will be the 1st to complain when the government coffers dry up and basic services collapse. Where will your pension be then when they (we) cannot afford to even pay your basic salary. Your take home will be a lot less than €400 then and unfortunately a lot of innocent families will suffer.
When you buy a golf ball or a mortgage or a wibbley wobbley wonder you make a payment to pensions that you wont benefit from. Why do you think it remarkable that you make a similar payment when you buy public services?
Your rude and crass insults are based in nothing but hatred and you should be reined in by Admin here.
Your taxes do pay me paltry salary and by God you're getting great value for it...
Wibbly Wobbly Wonder buyers in the seventies were 40 years off pension age.. This is about paying for your OWN pension yourself.. not about getting up on some one else's back (i.e. riding another) or eating their wibblywobblywonder!!
I like everyone else, both private and public, pay for public services through taxes. How else can there upkeep be achieved. That is normal. If I choose to purchase a golf ball or a mortgage or a wibbley wobbley wonder" (nice) or TV, anything in the consumer channel I again pay for the upkeep of those public services through at least VAT. The obligation is always there as part of the social contract for anyone earning to give back to the running of the state. However, with a commercial purchase I have exercised free will to contract and understand the breakdown of the item. Its my choice.
However, if you were told (hypothetically) that your tax were being paid to cause a person to be tortured you would refuse to allow such payment be taken. In other words there are limits people are willing to accept. (That is the most extreme example I can think of and not a reflection on the current debate).
If someone in government (good ole Leni for instance) where to turn around and state that those i the public service were to pay a 50% levi all to pay off the bankers destruction of the country it would simply not be permissible and would rightly lead to riots on the streets. I don't believe people (public or private) would mind increased levies to protect the state as it in reality provides a benefit to them, that benefit being the security of the state. But there are limits on how much and everyone expects their funding to be correctly spent for the benefit of the country and apportioned justly. A pension payment for a public servant taken in part from a private worker does not express benefit to the state IMHO and even if it were it does not appear just IMO. It is an expression of perk and is as unfair as asking a public sector worker to fork out for a greedy private sector bankers retirement fund.
How would the public service feel if this role were reversed. What if they had to pay for private sector pensions from there wages. It could be said to be a fair trade, the PS have job security, the private get a bigger pension to pay for a life of job uncertainty.
That would not be fair either.
Hi Pablito, Public servants do pay for their pensions. There are variations but general civil service grades pay 5% PRSI, 6.5% pension contribution 6%+ pension levy and Benchmarking II charged them a further 12% a total of 29.5%
If all these deductions were invested in low risk savings over the career of the employee they would probably grow to a lot more than he or she will ever draw down in the pension.
Self-serving misinformation from vested interests like the PIBA is a poor foundation for understanding this subject.
You should deduct the 5% PRSI as this is used to pay for the dole, etc and not CS pensions.
Reply With Quote