Cameron to win Eurocrat pay cut as part of EU budget deal

Kudos to Cameron!

Whereas many EU citizens lose their jobs and have to accept austerity measures, the EU fat cats keep on partying.

Four years of sheer incompetence in the Euro crisis quite prove their outstanding qualities, always used to justify their extravagant salaries.

"No bread? Let them eat cake," someone set right before the French Revolution.

France or one of its Southern or Eastern allies will simply veto this despicable budget...

As I mentioned in the original post - dog whistle stuff & you are all going bow wow wow.

"Although I find their packages excessive" - excessive compared to??? Banksters? Lawyers? Financiers and similar tax doging crooks?
Or excessive compared to other bureaucrats?

I ask these questions because the "problem" of EC pay is minor compared to the financial crisis and the faliure of governments of all political stripes to fix it. Cammoron's party is more than 50% financed by the banksters that caused the financial crisis in the first place - but you are all jumping to his dog whistle on EC salaries. How very predictable.

Envious of EC salaries? apply to join and "enjoy" such salaries - you may not find that working for the EC is so wonderful. As with any large org (public or private) one sees the good the not so good and the awful. it is a function of the org.

Let's finish this discussion. Nothing will change anyway. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Every day I work with officials. That is, I do the work an official is paid for.
This way, the tax payer ends up paying twice.

Talk is cheap: it's easy to want to "make the EU project work" if someone else -a "stagiaire", an independent IT consultant etc.- is doing the actual work.
On top of this, the ones who carry out the work do NOT get the pay & perks, but DO pay a 56% tax rate.

You are right concerning the structure. It gets worse, actually.
A European businessman that wants to export to the US has to talk to but 1 body: the US Chamber of Commerce.
A US businessman that wants to export to the EU has to talk to the Flemish (or Catalonian, Lombardian, Bayern,...), Belgian (Spanish, Italian, German,...) and EU Chambre of Commerce. I am quite sure the EU system is far more efficient, and effective, than the US one.

Let's not even get into the subject of corruption -only one of them ever committed suicide because of moral reasons. And he wasn't even caught!

The only ones having "genuine intentions" are people like us pay taxes so that the eurocrats can keep on living the grand life.
They aren't interested in the EU project, but in their own little project (which basically consists in fetching as much porperty as they can in order to rent it out).
Have a stroll in Brussels' EU neighbourhood. Everywhere you'll see small ads of immigrant women who offer to work long hours cleaning, babysitting etc. in Eurocrat places. The Eurocrats talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. There's conscience for you.

"Have a stroll in Brussels' EU neighbourhood. Everywhere you'll see small ads of immigrant women who offer to work long hours cleaning, babysitting etc. in Eurocrat places."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? Cleaning and babysitting can be had VERY cheap in Belgium via the titres services system. EUR7.50/hour (less after your tax refund) meaning nearly anyone can afford it. Heck, we got our first cleaner while on our first job out of uni and barely affording groceries. The affordability of these services in Belgium is just too good to resist.

Also, I live in the EU quarter and have never seen these ads to which you refer...

As a Eurocrat it is pretty galling to be told I am a fat cat and my pay is excessive.

I came from the UK and my pay is almost exactly the same as my UK colleagues.

The truth is there are two Eurocrat universes, one for staff recruited before 2004 and one for those recruited afterwards.

For those recruited before, yes, there are examples of people doing nothing and getting paid pretty well. and they did not suffer at all in the 2004 reform.

For those recruited after 2004, the salaries are around 4 - 5k euros a month. there is no-one recruited after 2004 getting paid more than the prime minister. and bear in mind that the average age of recruitment is 35. there are no 21 year olds getting these salaries.

please let's have a bit of realism in this debate.

A small multinational of 3000 bureaucrats make more than the PM of the UK, the world's 5th economy. Indeed, let's have a bit of realism for God's sake.

@Oli
The changes that you propose would have the effect of discouraging the best qualified staff from careers with the EU. The fact is that every international organisation, Brussels or elsewhere, has similar or better conditions of pay in order to attract well-qualified staff. The EU employs relatively small numbers of staff in comparison with national administrations. Their cost represents a small fraction of the EU budget. In order to attract such people from their home countries and away from their families to places like Brussels and Luxembourg, there needs to be an attractive package on offer.

This said, the package is not "excessive". It has been trimmed substantially since 2004, with the result that only a small number of staff enjoy the highest grades. Reducing the package still further will only push bright people to work elsewhere.

A possible solution could be to have a temporary period during which there are salary reductions etc to take account of the current financial situation.

@Patrick

The EU officials are ON TOP OF their national, regional (e.g. Flemish) and supra-regional (e.g. Benelux) peers.
I.e. we sometimes have 3 (or 4) people doing more or less the same job!

The small army of 55,000 officials does not mention the temporary staff, which is about double its size!

As for the competences, I have to admit the EU has an excellent track record of tangible achievements. The Euro currency is a construction Harvard of Cambridge could not even dream of.

@Patrick

Birmingham City Council has operational, hands-on tasks. I.e. people who actually DO something. No doubt cleaners make/made part of this headcount hence the high number.

Just the Commission? Well, we have an EU diplomatic force, don't we? Makes sense, though. The embassador of -say- Milwaukee to Europe would surely agree.

Holy bill of rights, Batman! I think I'll leave this discussion, not least because there are too many 'Mikes' to keep track of!

Final thoughts from my side:

(1) Very interesting to hear the assertion that 'most' people getting AD5 positions are in their mid-30s with a decade of experience. I actually do find this plausible based on the haggard faces and grey hair I've seen at AD5 concours exams. :)

However:
(a) In terms of external communications, EPSO sure likes to state, re-state and re-state once again that AD5 positions are for graduates with little to no experience. LOL, AND
(b) That said, the EU Officials I personally know are all AD5 and all (but 1) are in their 20s, NOT in their mid-30s with a decade of experience. The 1 guy who IS in his 30s has a decade of experience, the vast majority of which was unpaid internships!

(2) Yes, EU Officials DO do work, and a lot. I know (and work indirectly with) lots of them in my own job. Especially as a result of reforms in recent years, they often work long hours and are under-staffed. Several actually live in my apartment block (which, by the way, is not near Montgomery but the Quartier Léopold, i.e., the REAL EU quarter) and often get home from work late, sometimes as late as 9-10pm.

(3) I've also heard from several EU Officials that 'permanent' contracts are being offered less and less. There is an increasing tendency to employ people on a 'non-permanent' basis (1-5 years in duration, sometimes non-renewable, often only renewable if the employee has performed). This is helping to combat some genuine cases in the past of EU Officials getting permanent 'residency' after a minimum period (18 months I believe?) of promising work, and then spending the rest of their careers doing as little as possible without fear of reprisals.

(4) To Patrick: you have suggested that the changes I propose "would have the effect of discouraging the best qualified staff from careers with the EU." I don't agree. Firstly, my only proposal is to either increase the Community Tax on officials or add an additional tax to help keep Brussels in an acceptable state. Secondly, have you seen the EPSO statistics? The last concours I applied for (I have since given up) attracted some 60,000 APPLICANTS, all for a reserve list of maybe 10-20 actual 'winners.' So I do not accept that the EU Institutions would suddenly struggle to find motivated applicants.

(5) I'm prepared to accept that EU Officials are indeed a small fraction of the 'some 5 million people' I referred to who work in Brussels through Monday-Friday. Very fair point. The 5 million people I referred to was to highlight the incredible strains on the maintenance of Brussels as a city. Perhaps what we need is a way to ensure that we get contributions from everyone who works here, EU Officials and others, to stop the city falling apart. Certainly, BELGIANS who work in Brussels but live in Flanders or Wallonia (and pay tax there) do not help the situation.

Nonetheless, this does not change the fact that EU Officials pay significantly less tax than the average Brussels schmo, and unless that changes the stereotypes and resentments will linger. I'm sorry but that's how it is.

A good afternoon to you all.

to Olli from Mark

I will also not write more, but: 1. the 34 was official number given in the DG HR Report. I acknowledge now it may be less, as the conditions are in fact less attractive. 2. Yes, there are more and more temps and less and less permanents. "Permanent" is believed to cost less, altough IMHO the quality/price ratio is most often NOT better. It aso significantly impacts output of the Institutions 3. One would need to work non-stop for more than 6 years to qualify for a permanent contract. 4. Yes, there are many candidates in the times of high unemployment, especially from certain countries (in one of competitions 1/3 came from either Italy or Roumania). Not necessarily the ones the Institutions are looking for. See e.g. http://euobserver.com/political/115704

[Sorry for typos, I am not good at typing from smartfone]

EU and UK civil service packages: some real facts & figures

I grow weary of basing important public expenditure decisions on false data. Here are a few little-stated facts.
1.The EU institutions are making structural reforms.
-But like all public action, it must be done right. Ideas for dramatic, badly prepared and unsustainable changes simply harm the services that EU institutions deliver to EU citizens.
2. National public service salaries have been well protected.
-Since 2004 the total of nominal increases of salaries in, to take one example, UK central government accumulates to 22.4%.
- Only this year the nominal increase in public sector in the UK was 0.9%. Meanwhile, the Council blocks the similar rises to which the Member states had committed in law for EU staff in return for imposiing the special tax…
-The level of salary for the highest-ranked officials in the UK is € 21 700, against € 16 000 in the EU institutions.
-The Commission has proposed to increase the weekly working hours from 37.5 to 40 without any compensation, while in the UK it is 36h in London and 37h elsewhere.
3. Taxes are paid in Brussels too!
-EU civil servants and pensioners pay income taxes on their salaries and pensions at a marginal rate of up to 45 %, which is a higher rate than in the UK.
-Counting all taxes (including special levy of 5.5%) and contributions the marginal rate rises to up to 51%.
4. Pensions are cheaper at home than in Brussels.
-The pension contribution paid by the staff in the UK is 3.5%, against 11.6% for the staff in the EU Institutions.
- The pension in the UK can be up to 75% of the highest salary, but 70% in the EU institutions. The pension accrual rate in the UK is 2.3% (1.9% in the EU institutions).
-The Commission has already proposed to increase the pensionable age to 65, with a possibility to retire at 67 while in the UK it is 65 only for newcomers (for most staff it is still 60).

"have been educated to a high level, speak several languages fluently and have given up their home countries"

I.e. just like about any waiter in a restaurant in modern Europe.

@Patrick

Please, do not give the impression that the entire EU staff graduated from Harvard with summa cum laude and publishes regularly in Science Magazine. You would be fooling yourself, not me.

Indeed, the language requirements are entirely different. The waiter has to get a tangible result, i.e. serving what the customer wants.
Besides, the fact that he needs another level does not imply that he wouldn't master it.

The point is: although many "schmos", as someone called them (by the way, thanks for yet another, rather brilliant, proof of Eurocrat arrogance!), may not master languages at that level, it doesn't justify the perks of those who do.

@Patrick

As a matter of fact I am not at all surprised about the level of ability among the EU staff.

In fact, each time a complicated piece of work has to be done, our services are called upon! As I have mentioned before: many (IT) consultants -among which a lot of Britons, actually- carry out the work the permanent staff should be doing (but aren't quite able to).

I confess that I still am not sure about the selection pocedure, that is: to what extend capabilities count (and politics kick in)?

It is not nice a thing (ab)using your younger colleagues' "misfortune" to downplay your own extravaganza.

I said I'm out of this discussion (and I still am) but I continue to read with interest. These really are the final 2 things I will say (I mean it this time):

(1) Mike, I was the one - indeed, the ONLY one - who used the term 'schmo,' and I was using it, SARDONICALLY, to include people like myself (i.e., not an employee of the EU institutions or agencies!) so please at least read the discussion properly before laying on your clear emotional outrage at EU officials. Some of us are genuinely trying to learn from this discussion.

(2) If the Commission's HR reports indeed say that 34.7 years is the average age of incoming AD5 staff then this is truly interesting. Damn you EPSO, for getting the hopes of countless graduates up and (worse) making us waste our time with the inane concours system. You have literally stolen weeks that I'll never get back. Maybe it's worth injecting some honesty in your advertisements for EU careers?

Oli, marginal tax rates for the highest paid staff i.e. AD16 is indeed set at 45%.

The solidarity levy - an extra levy on top of that! - is going up to 8% apparently.

another myth busted...

@Oli
Apologies, I first noticed the word "schmo" in Patrick's post, who clearly is an EU official.
I did not notice he was merely quoting you (and up until now it wasn’t quite clear whether you are an EU official or not).

Anyway, this tread is meant to comment on Cameron's proposal. It is not a guide of how to join the EU institutions. I am quite sure that there are plenty of such sites.

Though I am not the person to give advice, do think twice about pursuing these exams. If, instead, you learn a proper job -though you won’t be able to join the eurocrats on their property sprees nor sit at their table in Michelin star restaurants- you might make yourself a lot more useful to society. My former classmates work in Casualty and save lives, others build railway and underground stations, one dredges ports (he works 16 hours a day, 7 days a week but what he gets out of it in terms of satisfaction!), I myself design and implement transaction systems (Oil & Gas, Utilities). Don’t become a pen-pusher who only revives when he’s filling in his expense accounts.

@Maria
Anybody who works for a public company, and who can be made redundant at any time, knows exactly why a candidate would like to remain anonymous.
Cameron accused “Brussels” of living in a parallel universe. He seems to be right.

I call it a day. Whereas millions of austerity-hit Europeans agree with me (and as the crisis becomes tougher, many more will do so), none of them seems to read news features like these. It makes sense though: people who have been evicted from their house do not read newspaper articles on foreclosures either.

@Maria
Anyone with a mortgage, a family to support or –inversely– without a partner to fall back on, would not like to see his/her name and surname appear in public on a list of (un)successful applicants. Even more so if he/she had to do a lot of effort to get the job he/she is currently doing.

With regards to the surnames that do not sound local.
In Brussels the top 10 of most common surnames includes "N’guyen" and "Diallo".
I am quite sure that, in this respect, London and Berlin aren’t any different.
Besides, economic powerhouses like the UK and Germany traditionally attract many immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.
On the other hand, couldn’t it be that quotas and/or language requirements favour applying for an EU job from outside of your own country?
Selectively using a single statistic to build a conspiracy theory is just too easy a thing to do.

Nevertheless, it would be genuinely sad if top students would give up a medical, engineering or academic career in order to become an EU official. What a waste of talent!

All of you who attack the euro-fat-cats, why don't you try to take a competition to work for the EU yourselves??
You need to compare what is comparable: salaries of EU staff with people with an equivalent level of competence and skills who work abroad, for other international organisations or multinational companies.
You will then find out that EU staff salaries are lower than the average.

It is not by cutting the administrative expenditure of the EU institutions that your political representatives protect your interests.
On the contrary, the severe cuts proposed by some of our Heads of State and Government, would inevitably result in a lethal weakening of the EU civil service and of its essential role of ensuring the continuity and the constant impulse to the European integration process.
With up to 25% less resources, the institutions will simply not be able to continue functioning and the competence, the indipendence, the geographic balance of the civil service will no longer be ensured.
The EU budget is not a simply a cost for the national budgets: it is the result of a very effective pooling of resources among the 27 Member States and generates up to four times additional investments in key areas, such as regional and rural development, transport and telecommunication infrastructures, research, life-long learning. It finances essential objectives such as food security and social protection. All this for only 67 cent per day per citizen in average.
And the EU civil service is composed by approximately 50 000 men and women from all parts of Europe: not more than those who work for the city of Paris or for the city of Birmingham!
The overall administrative expenditure represents approximately 6% of the EU budget, and only half of this very minor portion goes into salaries.
Therefore, disproportionate cuts in the administrative budget would produce dramatic consequences on the functioning of the European institutions, while not having any real benefit for the national budgets.

Do not fall into the trap of believing that cutting the EU staff salaries is a big and important victory for your country: it is not. It is sheer populism, it is a result which is very easy to achieve since no Member State will waste ammunition in defending the EU staff, whilst being totally counterproductive. Do not drink it.
You should rather support a stronger EU budget, resulting from a serious budgeting exercise (i.e. assessing needs and setting objectives and then allocating resources, rather than just cutting the previous budget copied-pasted).
A better and stronger EU is part of the solution to the current crisis. Judge by yourselves, without letting you be biased by those political representatives who use "Brussels" as a scapegoat to cover their problems and failures and bring to the forum their worst national egoisms.

@Mike
The EU institutions can't be compared with a UK local authority which has specific tasks to do (and even here most authorities don't do that anymore due to oursourcing).

It's more higher level policy-making; to take the examples that you give, there are currently active efforts being made to implement a Europe-wide energy policy which would provide the basis for sustainable long-term energy supply, thereby avoiding the situation we have in the eastern states where Russia switches off the gas from time to time. With regard to sewage and drinking water, efforts here are being made to bring Europe's environment up to a high level, building on the blue flag scheme for beaches which fosters tourism.

There will one day be one Parliament, Senate etc but that sort of thing isn't done overnight. Do you know how many employees work for the US federal government? 2.15 million! Compared to them, the EU is good value for money.

Implementing swingeing salary cuts will result in the situation which currently exists in UK local government, whose incompetence (and I've seen it at first hand) will eventually result in its privatisation to the detriment of local communities.

Looking at this thread it appears that Cameron has succeeded to divert people from some key issues in the overall budget towards a mundane details about salaries and perks – a subject which easily offers itself to endless debates.

It’s very tiring to continue reading such clichés about incompetent, overpaid, useless civil servants of the Commission. Over the years Member States have got us used to the fallacy that bad stuff happening in our respective countries is the fault of Brussels while the good stuff is the national government. UK and FR have been particularly good at that.

At the end of the day, it seems that the Commission is always blamed for the problems, while, in fact, it cannot do much without the approval of the two elected institutions. In other words, when politicians criticise “Brussels”, they just criticise themselves.

On the budget issues, more responsibilities mean more needs. But the level of the discussion that our head of states had, does not show much of a strong long term vision, but rather short term petty interests: I put x in the budget, therefore I want to get x back. If all citizens did the same in their respective countries, we would soon abandon wealth redistribution through tax and go back to dark ages.

Let’s make sure that what will contribute to the long term success of Europe (e.g. research, education, integration policies, etc.) is kept. Let’s also make sure that the Commission has the financial means to implement what it is asked to. As for the rest…

@Patrick
Please, do not compare apples with oranges. The US Federal servants carry out and, more important, take responsability for many more tasks than their EU peers do.

As you seem to know the numbers: how many public servants per inhabitant does Europe have. And the US?
So, for Belgium that would include the Flemish, national, Benelux and EU level.
(And now don’t even try to tell us Belgium is an exception: Catalonia, Scotland, Lombardia etc. have similar structures.)

@Ray
You are probably not aware of it, but your elegy about local levels claiming success/blaming failure exactly proves my point:
Eurocrats have “carte blanche”. All you do is freewheeling. And you’re being paid loads of money for it!

@MC2
Your remark about the IgNoble prize is quite ridiculous -as ridiculous as the prize, perhaps? Apparently, an American university, Harvard, attributes the IgNoble prize. For political, and diplomatic, reasons they would not even dare to attribute it to the EU. And if they would, the EU would undoubtedly win it year after year.

Mainly because of the eurocrat’s sheer incompetence and their ever increasing appetite for tax money, millions of young Europeans will face life-long unemployment.
The hundred thousands jobs that are moving to Asia will never come back.
Meanwhile, in the Occident, the eurocrats keep partying until dawn.

Young Europeans with stamina have but one option: to emigrate. Angola, Brazil, Mexico… will be their new homeland.
Like their ancestors they will face hard times and feel nostalgic about home.
But at least, like their predecessors in the US, they will be free men, liberated from a cynic and parasite upper class that is rotten to the bone.

Louis XVI and his court were amusing themselves watching a play when the angry crowd showed up at the gates of the palace. This time, it won’t be Versailles the crowd will head for, but “Caprice des Dieux” and Berlaymont.

So, according to you: an American university would have a problem in poking fun at UE but not its own government. The global crisis and unemployment are UE fault, nothing to do with the financial sector. Jobs move to cheaper labor countries for the same reason. And young Europeans will emigrate en masse to Angola.

I find it sad that you actually seem to believe it.

Good bye.

Many, if not most, are generalizing here, while the issue is much too complex for this. I would say the following:

- I'm sorry to say for all those who would support without qualifications the current UK position on this issue, that it's a cheap political trick. There are many arguments for this, but I have no illusions that I could persuade those referred to earlier, so I won't spend time on that. But there is an important thing here. I think most of us would agree that a more effective and efficient EU civil service should be the goal of any reform. Well, unfortunately, the current proposal is not going to achieve much of it. It will be, at its best, a simbolic gesture to appease the electorate at home and which will have no substantive effect on the performance of EU bureaucracy.

- there are all sorts of eurocrats: good and bad (whether you want to see this as a matter of skills or competences, interests or intentions, education levels or moral values, earnings or yearnings.. take your pick) and I wouldn't generalize. I personally believe, however, that changing the hiring/firing practice would be the best solution here. Today it is both very difficult to get in and to get out. It should be the opposite: a lot easier to do both. Admission should be determined by potential and retention by achievement. It's not easy, I know. But its doable.

@ UK-skeptic
You're absolutely right, expect for a couple of figures: administration (the so-called "heading 5" of the multi-annual financial framework) represents only 6% (half of which is allocated to salaries) of the EU budget. Thus, 94% is "policy-related" spending: 80 spent DIRECTLY BY THE MEMBER STATES IN THE MEMBER STATES and 14 spent by the Commission IN FAVOUR OF THE MEMBER STATES...
So, yes, Mr Cameron and some of his colleagues are cheating: reducing salaries and pensions of the EU staff is NOT the point. At all.
ES.

> than cuts to high staff salaries

Cameron did NOT propose cuts to the high salaries. His '200 high-earners' argument is pure rhetoric for the masses. The actual proposals hit the low-level officials. (The 8 MSs proposal to impose 'special tax' also on the lowest salaries, which are not above Belgian average, is a perfect example).

Some facts:
Purchasing power evolution of salaries of national civil servants (central government) between 2004 and 2011:
EU civil servants: -7.6%
DE civil servants: -4.5%
UK civil servants: -3.2%
FR civil servants: -0.3%
BE civil servants: +2.3%
NL civil servants: +2.9%

Net salary evolution in 2011:
EU civil servants: +0% (proposed 1.7% rejected by Council).
DE federal civil servants: +1.3% (decision of October '11: +2.44% as of 1 January '12).
UK civil servants: +1.3%
FR civil servants: +2.0%.
NL civil servants: +2.0%
BE civil servants: +3.6%.

Purchasing power evolution 2011:
EU civil servants: -3.6% (given Council's refusal of 2011 pay adjustment).
DE civil servants: -1.1%
FR civil servants: -0.3%.
NL civil servants: -0.5%
UK civil servants: -2.8%
BE civil servants: +0.2%

Weekly working time obligation:
EU civil servants: 37.5h; COM proposal: 40h as of 1 Jan 2013 as compensation for a 5% staff cut (€835 million of savings until 2020).
DE civil servants: 39h for contract staff, 41h for officials.
FR civil servants: 35h.
NL civil servants: 36h (compensation hours if they voluntarily work longer).
UK civil servants: 36h.
BE civil servants: 38h.

Pension contribution:
EU civil servants: 11.6%.
DE civil servants: 0%.
FR civil servants: 7.85% (as of 2020: 10.55%).
UK civil servants: 3.5%.
NL civil servants: 6.42%
BE civil servants: 0%

Annual accrual rate (pension rights per year of service):
EU civil servants: 1.9%.
DE civil servants: 1.79% (note: unlike the EU pension scheme, the German scheme recognises pre-service periods like time spent after the age of 17 on education, studies, preparatory services etc. as service periods on which the 1.79% are applied, see Articles 6 to 14 of the Gesetz über die Versorgung der Beamten und Richter des Bundes).
FR civil servants: 1.81%.
NL civil servants: 2.05%
UK civil servants: 2.3%

Normal retirement age:
EU civil servants: 63; Commission proposal 65, and easier to work until 67.
DE civil servants: 65 (increase to 67 with a transition).
NL civil servants: 65.
FR civil servants: from 60 to 62 in 2018.
The Commission reform proposal will bring the pension age closer to the DE civil service bearing in mind that EU staff works abroad and is expatriate staff until retirement. (70% of EU expat staff leave the host country after retirement.)

Early retirement age/minimum pensionable age:
EU civil servants: 55; Commission proposal 58.
DE civil servants: 63.
NL civil servants: 60.
UK civil servants: 50.

Maximum rate of pension:
EU civil servants: 70% of final salary.
DE civil servants: 71.25% of final salary.
FR civil servants: 75% of final salary (can be increased to 80%).
NL civil servants: no clear information from NL government.
UK civil servants: 75% of highest earning (2007 scheme); 66% (1972 + 2002 scheme).
The maximum pension rate of EU civil servants is comparable to the DE civil service. To bear in mind: 45% of EU staff receive a pension which is lower than 70%. 15% receive less than 50%. The average is currently 62% and will go down to 55% based on the 2004 pension reform and 2012 proposals.

Sources:
Commission statistics
Eurostat statistics

@Patrick, Maria, Carmen, Mike, Carl, MC2 et alii

Even if payroll would account for only 0.001% of the total budget, it should be spent wisely because it is tax money.

Before you claim yet more money, could we first discuss how you spend it?
Let us have a look at your internal audit, shall we?

You know what audit I am talking about: the one Klaus Welle is trying to hide.
Off we go...

Small perks, huh? Let me quote the 2006 audit: “personal entitlement and perks worth £81 million”.

Staff is allowed to authorise their own expenses and pay allowances to family members. Does the term “conflict of interest” ring a bell?

The bigger the parasite, the more blood he needs, apparently.
The so-called Galvin report on Europe’s MEPs discloses that any MEP:
- can get £ 54,000 just for declaring his/her home to be his/her office.
- could spend € 17,000 a month on a “personal assistant”, which might be an (unqualified) relative.
In both cases, no evidence (works or names) is required!

Mind that the auditors could only consult 167 out of 4,686 payments!

Will someone please clean those Augean stables!

Feeling a little embarrassed? Emptying one of the 49,000 bottles the EU keeps in its wine cellar might ease the feeling.

For 18 consecutive years now, the auditors cannot give a positive statement!
And guess what? Instead of complying with the rules, they will just change them!

No young European adult has ever known a clean European Union and ditto EU public servants. You sure set a shining example to youth.

Forgive me for being bold, but those who do not even feel slightly embarrassed reading those lines –and as a European even I do– are a disgrace to every taxpayer in Europe.

P.S. To your credit, at least the handful of you are open to discussion.

@Carmen

I might be writing during your working hours, but I can assure you I am not during mine -I work in shifts.

All money figures refer to the EU. Thus, the same level.
Blaming your peers is easy. Next thing would be differentiating yourself from another department, pre and post Kinnock (or whatever you may call it) etc.

As my previous post states: it is all tax money we are talking about. It doesn’t matter whether an EU official or an MEP spends it. It is spent on an EU level. By EU people.

Now I’m off to work.

Besides, the whole point of an internet thread is that people can participate whenever they are able to. It’s not a telephone conversation in which all participants have to join at the same time.

Well, take 45 minutes time to reply to posts like these offline and, under your flexitime scheme, you would be having an extra month of –that would be 3 in total.

Cheers,

@Martin & (other) Eurocrats

The tax rates you mention are not effective tax rates.
Thanks to a very flat progressive rate, only a tiny fraction of staff pays high tax rates.
The vast majority pays a rate that is closer to the low 8% than the high 45%.
For example, even a Eurocrat who earns € 7,600 a month only pays € 900 in taxes & contributions. That’s a tax rate of less than 12%.

On top of this, Eurocrats do not pay taxes & contributions on overtime (evening and weekend work). Any other European citizen does.

You hold back a lot. In this case, that is not fair play: you know the figures; you have them at your disposal. We do not.

On top of the 16% expatriate allowance, you fail to mention several fees:
- a monthly housekeeping fee: € 149 plus 2% of gross wage
- a monthly child fee: € 326 per child
- a monthly parental fee: € 221
- …

Did you mention that you can send your children to school for free? Few Europeans can.

Also, tax payers are sponsoring EU staff’s private travel.
In 2009, each civil servant spent on average € 2,164 of tax money on private travel.
You are a bunch of tax devouring jet setters!
What’s your next smashing EU project? “Low Carbon Emission”? “Small Footprints”?

The battle between David Cameron & allies and the EU is bound to be a fierce one. Hopefully, it will get plenty of media coverage.
With 12 million of unemployed and one quarter on the doorstep of poverty, European citizens should become aware of above figures.

I have no idea where you get your data from - or rather I think I do: some UK tabloid full of half-truths if not outright lies.

People are not paid overtime and get NO extra payment for it. Unlike any other European citizen, it seems.

Schools are definitely accessible for free both in my homecountry and in Belgium. I believe also in UK one has access to free education.

€ 2,164 of tax money on private travel? Gosh, I may only wish.

Parental allowance? LOL, I do not get one (andd I promise I have parents) and nobody from my colleagues does. Etc. etc. etc.

That is typical: to take anything 'up to' and maximum, which in real life nobody gets (example of these famous 90 days off: IF one is stationed in Iraq, has grade of AD15, management post, 62 years, illness, AND gets allowed maximum time off for overtime worked, one just may hit it. In real life nobody does and the cap on annual leave is 30, which also happens to be the norm for civil servants in the UK for example) and then present it as the norm.

But since you neither see nor care about the differences between the MEP, top politicians and the civil servants, you should not worry your pretty little head about it.

@1205

I use figures that come from an MEP. The questions this MEP raised in Parliament as well as some of the replies he received can be consulted on a website you must be familiar with:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sidesSearch/search.do?type=QP&term=7&author=39769&language=EN&startValue=0

He has collected all answers and replies in a publication. Free copies can be ordered online.

I ordered the original, German version. Perhaps you could translate the names of the fees properly? Being a Eurocrat, both your German and English are no doubt much better than mine.

The “parental fee” is money one gets just for being a parent.
That’s even more ridiculous than the silly joke you tried to make, isn’t it?

Do not worry. There's no need for you to go to Iraq in order to enjoy an outrageous numberof holidays. Ask your superior about the so-called "flexitime" scheme.

In 2009, the EU spent a total of 55 million Euros on private travel, MEP staff EXCLUDED! Including MEP staff would bring the total up to a staggering 60 million Euros.

It looks like you just didn’t get your share, mate.

Indeed, I do not distinguish EU officials from MEP staff.
Some people know how to distinguish between members of different Indian tribes, but I happen to be so blunt I can’t tell whether it is MEP or other EU staff when I see them.

Anyway, why should I?
So that next time two Eurocrats sneak into a Brussels hotel at lunch time, I will be safe in the knowledge that it is MEP staff who’ll put it on expenses, and not post-Kinnock EU staff. What a relief! Thanks for clarifying. I feel much better now.

I mentioned fair play, but yours is more like foul play.
You are at the source of the facts and, despite knowing that we are not, you go into twisting them.

I think that every participant in this thread –whether member of an EU institution or not– will agree with me on this one: Abide by the facts you have or leave this thread please.