Post 1995 Public Servants & Integration With Social Welfare Pension

T

taytoman

Registered User
Messages
251
I work in the public service, and am a "post-1995" person who pays A1 PRSI. My pension is made up of my public service pension and also my social welfare pension. My minimum retirement age is 60 (reached in 2027) and I must contractually retire at 65 (reached in 2032).

What is the exact story with my social welfare pension? I understand that from 2028, we can all can only get the contributory social welfare pension at 68, and that the so called "transition" social welfare pension is being abolished from 2014. When I go into the the dept of finance pensions modeller with this info, it has me getting the social welfare pension at age 66, which appears wrong? When I get onto my HR dept, they seem as confused as I am!

My current understanding is that if I retire at age 60, provided I don't work in PRSIable employment, my employer makes up the difference, and then from 65 to 68, my employer makes up the difference regardless of whether I work in PRSIable employment or not.

Is this correct??? I'm sure there are lots of other people out there in this situation wondering about this!
 
Everything could have changed by then, so why bother worrying about it now? What exactly can you do to change matters now, nothing.
 
dereko1969 said:
Everything could have changed by then, so why bother worrying about it now? What exactly can you do to change matters now, nothing.
Click to expand...
That is precisely the problem with pensions policy in this state.

The OP is clearly attempting to engage in long term financial planning but it is utterly unclear as to what even present system is, still less what it will be in 14 years. And yet we get preached to as individuals for not looking after our post-retirement needs? The whole area is a sick joke, with a deep void where government leadership should be.
 
Well said Oyster man. I'm sure lots of people are wondering about this. Anyone out there got any thoughts?
 
Sorry I seem to have mislaid my crystal ball.

Any thoughts anyone might have on an internet forum to base your entire pension plans on are worthless.

Oysterman, I don't know if you've realised this but we've gone through a bit of a turndown recently, we're not in Kansas anymore so everything is up for grabs.

By 2041 25% of the population will be over 65, the current pension system cannot continue at the rate it is, what it changes to no-one knows and no-one can predict but it won't be as nice as it is now as it would not be affordable.

Anyone who tells you what things will be like, pension wise, in 2027 or later is a liar - expect a FF press release stating in no uncertain terms that they will maintain pensions as they are for the next 30 years, followed by a SF one that they will increase them year on year by the cost of living +1%.
 
Situation at the moment.

Retire at age 60 or 61, get work pension.

Also receive supplementary pension from employer until CSP kicks in at age 66 or 67.
 
taytoman said:
My current understanding is that if I retire at age 60, provided I don't work in PRSIable employment, my employer makes up the difference, and then from 65 to 68, my employer makes up the difference regardless of whether I work in PRSIable employment or not.
Click to expand...
Given that your pension is co-ordinated and that the state pension age is rising it is most likely that any pension you may be able to draw at 60 will not include the state pension amount.

You, and public servants in a similar position, might argue that you have an accrued right to the whole of your pension from 60. I doubt that you would win legally since ALL state pension contributors are being equally disadvantaged by the raising of the state pension age.

The remainder of your rights from 60 are also contentious, given that the government is considering an OECD report advocating serving public servants' pension ages be raised in line with those of new entrants. I would judge you have a far stronger case here, given that you seem to have paid for the non-co-ordinated bit of your pension on the contractual basis it is payable to you at 60 so you would seem to have an accrued right to it.

If they effect such a change it might merely be prospective from the date of the change so you could end up with part of your pension payable at 60, the remainder of it (plus the state pension amount) to become payable at 68 or whatever.

If you're planning now I do think you should assume that the best case is that you will be down a minimum of 8 years worth of state pension equivalent if you hope to retire at 60.

Of course this is all predicated on the notion that the state will be solvent by the time of your retirement.
 
dereko1969 said:
Sorry I seem to have mislaid my crystal ball.

Any thoughts anyone might have on an internet forum to base your entire pension plans on are worthless.
Click to expand...
OP certainly did not suggest he will base his entire pension plans on opinions from here.

This is a forum for the exchange of vews and opinions, dereko1969.

We like to think we may be able to clarify our thinking with the help of our fellow posters and we're sorry if that notion offends you.

We also like to keep things polite.
 
oysterman said:
Given that your pension is co-ordinated and that the state pension age is rising it is most likely that any pension you may be able to draw at 60 will not include the state pension amount.

You, and public servants in a similar position, might argue that you have an accrued right to the whole of your pension from 60. I doubt that you would win legally since ALL state pension contributors are being equally disadvantaged by the raising of the state pension age.

The remainder of your rights from 60 are also contentious, given that the government is considering an OECD report advocating serving public servants' pension ages be raised in line with those of new entrants. I would judge you have a far stronger case here, given that you seem to have paid for the non-co-ordinated bit of your pension on the contractual basis it is payable to you at 60 so you would seem to have an accrued right to it.

If they effect such a change it might merely be prospective from the date of the change so you could end up with part of your pension payable at 60, the remainder of it (plus the state pension amount) to become payable at 68 or whatever.

If you're planning now I do think you should assume that the best case is that you will be down a minimum of 8 years worth of state pension equivalent if you hope to retire at 60.

Of course this is all predicated on the notion that the state will be solvent by the time of your retirement.
Click to expand...

oysterman said:
OP certainly did not suggest he will base his entire pension plans on opinions from here.

This is a forum for the exchange of vews and opinions, dereko1969.

We like to think we may be able to clarify our thinking with the help of our fellow posters and we're sorry if that notion offends you.

We also like to keep things polite.
Click to expand...

I didn't think I was being inpolite, I was merely stating facts. Unlike your post that is full of conjecture and is about as useful as my post in forecasting what he should do. You've basically admitted with all the what ifs and perhaps and maybes and mights that you know nothing about what will happen just like the rest of us.

No-one knows what will happen, the OP can save his life away on the off-chance that his pensions will not suffice, or he could spend like there's no tomorrow and hope that they will, or he could do what most people will do, live now, save an additional amount that he can afford towards his pension through AVCs or other products, and hope that that will be enough.
 
I work in the public service, and am a "post-1995" person who pays A1 PRSI. My pension is made up of my public service pension and also my social welfare pension. My minimum retirement age is 60 (reached in 2027) and I must contractually retire at 65 (reached in 2032).
Click to expand...

I am interested in this topic being in a similar position.

Based on the above dates that your Year of birth is 1967?

But you imply you started after 1995 so will not have the magical 40 years service necessary for notional full pension?

60 is mentioned in my contract but it states I must work for 40 years to get a pension.
It also states retirement at 65 regardless of how many years worked (40+ or 40-) but that was signed many years ago.
There is nothing there that clearly outlines what will happen if I leave at 40 years but have not reached OAP age as now defined.



Depending on who I have asked I get a different answer,
  1. Employer makes good the difference
  2. Pension fund makes good the difference
  3. Trustees have discretion on making good the difference
  4. I get Unemployment Benefit for 14 months and nothing till I am 68
My current understanding is that if I retire at age 60, provided I don't work in PRSIable employment, my employer makes up the difference, and then from 65 to 68, my employer makes up the difference regardless of whether I work in PRSIable employment or not.
Click to expand...

I will have the magical 40 at 64 but what will happen until the OAP kicks in.
Help please
 
Have been to many of the "Framework for Pensions" meetings,seminars etc where a lot of the discussion seemed to be more about the past and very little real progress made about the future.

For a long time things have gone quiet and they seem to be scratching heads as to which direction to go next. Meantime we seem to have to be left in Limbo with no clear guidelines for those whose contracts expire at age 65 either for Private employees or Public servants.

It is therefore very difficult to advise anyone on providing for their retirement.

I think the one thing we can be fairly sure of is that we will be working long past 65
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top