Hi Brendan
<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> “The benefits are not related to the contributions. There is a maximum social welfare pension - there is no maximum rate of PRSI. Highly paid employees pay far more that the cost of the pension.”<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->
This looks more like an argument for restructuring the SW pension (by introducing an earnings-linked pension or by restoring a cap on the earnings by reference to which contributions are calculated or by funding it out of general taxation) rather than for abolishing it. Your essential objection here is that the SW pension is redistributive (i.e. it transfers wealth from higher earners to lower earners), but surely
(a) all pensions do that to some extent, and
(b) it’s is a legitimate social policy, and
(c) if it isn’t, it can be abandoned without abolishing the SW pension.
After all, income tax is redistributive, but that’s hardly an argument for abolishing it.
<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> “The state pension is full of inconsistencies. I can't remember the details, but someone with a few years continuous work can get a full pension, whereas someone with many years work split over a longer period would earn a reduced pension. This used to be the case, I don't know if it still is.”<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->
I think this is much less true than it used to be, but probably still true to some extent. But, again, surely the appropriate response is to eliminate these inconsistencies rather than abolish the pension altogether?
<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> “As a general principle, I would be in favour of replacing the social welfare pension with privately funded pensions. I don't know if it is practical. There would also have to be a non contributory pension for those whose employment contributions didn't qualify them for an adequate pension.”<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->
It’s practicable, but it’s bloody expensive. There would be winners and losers, but it would certainly mean higher contributions overall or lower benefits overall or (probably) a bit of both, so there would be more losers than winners. I’m not sure what advantages would be thought to accrue to the community as a whole.
You could argue for the abolition of the insurance element of the SW pension, replacing it with a universal age pension funded out of general taxation. Whether that amounts to the abolition of the SW pension and its replacement by something completely different or just to its radical restructuring is a point you could debate. A variation is to introduce a universal <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> but means-tested<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> old-age pension funded out of general taxation – this is what they have done in Australia.