Was a legal challenge raised against the public service "pension" levy? On what grounds was it challenged? On what basis did any challenge to the public service pension levy fail?
Disagree with the new pension levy
- Thread starter Skybox
- Start date
It's pointless to comparing public service pension arrangements to private sector pension incentives.
If you benefit from neither you probably feel (correctly) that you are subsidising both.
If you benefit from one or the other you should probably appreciate the benefit you get and feel sorry for the guy who's not able to benefit from either, rather than sniping at the benefits/incentives availed of by others.
If you benefit from neither you probably feel (correctly) that you are subsidising both.
If you benefit from one or the other you should probably appreciate the benefit you get and feel sorry for the guy who's not able to benefit from either, rather than sniping at the benefits/incentives availed of by others.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
http://www.independent.ie/business/...ail-in-challenge-to-pension-levy-2371925.html
Fair points - let's not forget that many people have both public and private pensions, having worked in both sectors, or having purchased AVCs to supplement their public pension.
Based on this thread, I'd say [broken link removed] would be appropriate!
Complainer said:
A lot of private sector employees already have to pay a % (5% being the standard, but could be more) of their salary into their pension scheme, and have done so for years. It's called a contribution, rather than a levy.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Public servants pay a 6.5pc contribution AND the levy.
I think this is a good point,in that they will get it either way..
That being said ,I also think that its showing that they are laying a pathway for more PS cuts and will use this to justify them?
Last edited:
Y
Yorrick
Guest
Squeze the rich until the pips squeak.
This Government is of the opinion that anyone who had the wisdom to invest in their pension fund are rich and Labour believe that they must be hammered.
The ones to blame are those who believed all that Labour guff about change.
Leopards don't change their spots. Their idea of an equal society is to drag everyone down to the level of the social welfare scroungers.
The people had an opportunity to keep them out of Government but did not take it.
This Government is of the opinion that anyone who had the wisdom to invest in their pension fund are rich and Labour believe that they must be hammered.
The ones to blame are those who believed all that Labour guff about change.
Leopards don't change their spots. Their idea of an equal society is to drag everyone down to the level of the social welfare scroungers.
The people had an opportunity to keep them out of Government but did not take it.
Ignoring all other hot potatoes and just answering this very narrow question - it depends.
0.6% of your entire fund for 4 years or, an average, tax deductible 5-8% for the rest of your working life?
If you've already retired. It's a no brainer, income levy please.
If you're going to retire in the next 15 years it's probably a no brainer, the pension levy will have a far greater effect on your overall financial position.
Over 15 years and it swings towards the income levy having more of an adverse effect.
But then again those more recent entrants to the PS have been getting it from every direction anyway. It's just another another example of the most senior members of the PS pulling up the ladder before they take the flight to Marbella.
But we know what we are going to paying out right now don't we? So what tax rate do people pay on the way out of their pensions since you think the tax relief on the way in such a big deal.
The simple fact remains that we had politicians standing up yesterday defending a raid on individuals savings by saying this is simply a claw back of some of the tax relief enjoyed by people. Public sector workers enjoy the same tax relief on their pension levy (contribution). Why were they not hit as well? And by the way, I don't want to see public sectors hit but I certainly don't see why they targeted one part of the population. Already I have read reports in international media about how the Government is doing an Argentina on private assets.
The was a jouranlist on RTE this morning supporting the measure. He admitted it was an extreme measue but justified under the present economic circumstances we are in.
From what I could make out, he said this was the best way of raising money through taxation that would not have as much effect on current household spending. I may have got it wrong but I took it that this is money that has been put away for the future so in the majority of cases , may not affect people's spending habits at the moment.
From what I could make out, he said this was the best way of raising money through taxation that would not have as much effect on current household spending. I may have got it wrong but I took it that this is money that has been put away for the future so in the majority of cases , may not affect people's spending habits at the moment.
As I understand it the levy could be passed on to the person ,for example they say it comes from the "Fund",but the funds are in major trouble anyway,so it may well be passed on to the employee..I cant see any employer making up the difference..
And as an aside,re your comment about the RTE journalist,as much those who are more left wing inclined dismiss most of what the sindo print,I could also say the journalists on RTE are in fact public servants and why wouldn't they say its justified..
And as an aside,re your comment about the RTE journalist,as much those who are more left wing inclined dismiss most of what the sindo print,I could also say the journalists on RTE are in fact public servants and why wouldn't they say its justified..
You are still raiding people's savings. There is no difference to what they did yesterday to them putting a 0.6% levy on saving accounts or any other investments except that people are stuck into pension funds and can't move money. Do it to deposits and you would see a flow of capital out of this Country and rightly so. They can defend it all they like but at the end of the day, it is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
So those who recieved social welfare are 'scroungers', but those who benefited from 41% or better tax relief to subsidise their pension have to be protected?
This is a very modest contribution from those who have modest assets. If they have a huge fund, they can well afford the contribution.
It's almost funny to see the reaction of some when the reality that those who gained most from the boom years have to share the pain of getting us out of this economic mess.
They were already hit! The pension levy (which is seperate to and in addition to the pension contribution) was the hit - and it was much larger than this hit!
The journalist was Dan O'Brein for the IT. He was on the Pat Kenny show. Don't know if he is consider left wing or not.
I'm just relaying the point he made that the government had to raise money and this was way of doing would not have as much impact in the short term and may be the way to go rather than just direct taxation.
I'm just relaying the point he made that the government had to raise money and this was way of doing would not have as much impact in the short term and may be the way to go rather than just direct taxation.
As I pointed out, no it wasn't. Or at least not in every case.
I'm sure Public Service workers might argue why they were hit with stringent pension levys when the private sector worker remained unscathed with any tax hikes ?
(I realise that there were subsequent tax hikes but these also hit Public Service workers).
I guess the diktat of 'everyone must pay but start with the other guy first' will always hold through. I'm not having a go at either sector in particular. It's human nature to feel very aggrieved at having your income attacked and being powerless to do anything about it.
I agree about the precedent, we need certainty around retirement planning.
However, I would look at it in the following context:
1) I expect we'll be paying property taxes of 0.25% to 0.5% of our property values in the near future
2) We already pay about 0.8% of our savings in dirt tax per annum (assuming you can get a 3% savings rate)
Money will be squeezed out of each and everyone of us in a variety of ways.
I just hope that this measure does not completely disincentivise saving for retirement.