# Retired people are at a much lower risk of poverty than younger people



## Brendan Burgess

Interesting data from the ESRI 






						Poverty, income inequality and living standards in Ireland
					

This report – funded by the Community Foundation for Ireland – brings together data from household surveys collected by the ESRI and the Central Statistics Office to create the first harmonised set of indicators on incomes, income inequality and poverty covering the period 1987 to 2019. These...




					www.esri.ie


----------



## Purple

That's because as a cohort they are rich and under taxed. There was a time when they were poor and needed support and we constructed our taxation and welfare structure accordingly. Now they are rich and don't need those supports but the structures remain the same. 
A far more targeted approach is necessary. Things like free travel and medical cards should be means tested. They should pay the full rate of PRSI since it's very unlikely that they contributed enough to fund their State pension over their working life. Social transfers should be given to those who needs them, not to those who don't.

I'm sure there'll be lots of the usual "I/they worked hard all their life" entitled nonsense in response.


----------



## Deiseblue

There are 7 of us who are friends since schooldays , all retired from what are essentially seen as middle class jobs teachers,  bankers , a bakery owner and a cafe owner.
All married with spouses retired or just about to retire from very similar type jobs.
At a recent night out we were discussing our respective financial situations and the common consensus was that each of our households , give or take , were netting an income of approximately €5,000 a month 
We all were extremely grateful and realise that we are lucky in that this largesse cannot continue into the future although we should be OK .
Perhaps means testing is the way forward.


----------



## Sophrosyne

The data shown in the original post appears to be based on SILC surveys carried out by the CSO and ESRI.
These random surveys could not be considered definitive.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I have moved the free travel discussion here: 






						Should we get rid of free travel of OAPs?
					

Things like free travel and medical cards should be means tested.   Ideologically, I would agree with you.  But in practice, the free travel is a real benefit to people and should be as widely available as possible.  In fact, for environmental reasons, I might extend it to everyone.  Brendan



					www.askaboutmoney.com


----------



## Purple

ashambles said:


> Any time I'm abroad I use trains, it's the best way to travel. In Ireland they're too expensive and crowded, it's cheaper and more pleasant to drive and pay for parking. That's not great for the environment.
> 
> Why are they so expensive? At least in part because of free travel. Over 1m people have access to free travel, probably about 25%+ of the adult population.
> 
> Free travel means Irish Rail have had a free hand to demand price hikes. For Irish Rail they can charge what they like because a large section of their users simply don't care - the government is going to hand over the cash for them.  (Many people don't understand how the system works - they genuinely think Irish Rail is letting them on for nothing).
> 
> Free travel is great for OAPs, but in a limited form - maybe off peak (like it used to be) and with a reasonable number of journeys per year before a reduced ticket price kicks in.


We shouldn't be giving free anything to anyone who can afford to pay for it.


----------



## Purple

I read the report and what is striking is that poverty rates are calculated before the cost of housing provision is taken into account. Income which is spent on housing provision is treated as if it is descressionary. If the objective it to show what real levels of poverty  and income inequality are then that renders much of the report meaningless. Descressionary income is what matters, descressionary income being _"Income that remains when all income taxes and compulsory payments have been made. Discretionary Income - Income left over after taxes and essential spending." _
If a household has an after tax income of €4000 a month but is spending €2000 on housing then their real descressionary income is €2000 (less whatever else we regard as "essential spending"). If we are worried about the impact of higher fuel prices on people on low incomes, and we should be, and we talk about fuel poverty in that those higher fuel prices eat into descressionary income, then we should be talking about the cost of housing in the same way. It would be very interesting to see the income distribution graph when that was factored in.


----------



## Mocame

Sophrosyne said:


> The data shown in the original post appears to be based on SILC surveys carried out by the CSO and ESRI.
> These random surveys could not be considered definitive.


The SILC surveys have one of the largest sample sizes of any survey carried out in Ireland, it is stratified sample so each section of the population is represented in proportion to its size and it uses a methodology which is standardised across all EU countries.  So it is as definitive as you can get.


----------



## Protocol

@Purple,

yes, correct, the first measure of poverty, AROP, is before any household expenditure.

It looks solely at income. It is still useful.

There are other measures of poverty, for example material deprivation, which try to take a broader picture.


----------



## Purple

Protocol said:


> @Purple,
> 
> yes, correct, the first measure of poverty, AROP, is before any household expenditure.
> 
> It looks solely at income. It is still useful.
> 
> There are other measures of poverty, for example material deprivation, which try to take a broader picture.


I've often argued against increases in the State Pension at it gives more money to rich people but from this report it does have a material impact on the small cohort of pensioners who are poor.

Maybe removing the Age Tax Credit and levying the full rate of PRSI and USC on retirees while increasing the State pension would be a fairer option.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Protocol said:


> There are other measures of poverty, for example material deprivation, which try to take a broader picture.


There is a trade-off here as there is so much subjectivity. Questions are along the lines of "are you able to afford a holiday once a year?". 

Person A might be able to answer yes as they don't smoke or drink and Person B might answer no as they spend the cost of a holiday on cigarettes. Person A and Person B have the same income but have a different subjective assessment of whether they are in poverty.

I personally like to complement with consumption-based measurement of poverty and inequality. Consumption surveys are very expensive to run and are only done once every five years by the CSO. They also throw up funny results where people seem to spend much more than their income, particularly at the low end. They also find that people claim they only drink half ss much on alcohol than the Revenue excise data suggest 

What I'm getting at is that poverty is multi-faceted. You have to look at a range of indicators from income, material deprivation, and consumption. For these surveys remember that people lie consciously or unconsciously, to a greater or lesser extent. Details of personal finance is really taboo. There's a reason why this forum is 98% pseudonymous!


----------



## Purple

@NoRegretsCoyote, excellent points but things like rent or mortgage payments and the cost of childcare or eldercare provision are reasonably well defined and objective items.

It's also noteworthy that much of the expenditure associated with eldercare is tax deductible but far less expenditure associated with childcare in similarly supported.


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> We shouldn't be giving free anything to anyone who can afford to pay for it.



Agreed.    As a Type 2 Diabetic, (something that came about due entirely to my own unhealthy and hedonistic lifestyle some years ago)  I am eligible for a long-term illness book which gives me free medication and blood testing equipment for the rest of my life.  I could well afford to pay for these, but because I don't have to pay for them, I don't!    The HSE shouldn't be giving me this benefit.


----------



## Allpartied

Groucho said:


> Agreed.    As a Type 2 Diabetic, (something that came about due entirely to my own unhealthy and hedonistic lifestyle some years ago)  I am eligible for a long-term illness book which gives me free medication and blood testing equipment for the rest of my life.  I could well afford to pay for these, but because I don't have to pay for them, I don't!    The HSE shouldn't be giving me this benefit.



Nothing is free, it is all paid for, either individually or communally. 

The way to address inequalities is via a progressive taxation system.  

If older retired people are drowning in cash then tax their income.  
If they hold mutlitple properties then tax those properties. 
If they have an income stream from investments or equities, then tax those sources too.  

If retired people are dying with millions in the bank, then raise death duties too.


----------



## joe sod

@Groucho "hedonistic lifestyle " out of curiosity was it food, sweet things or alcohol related that your diabetes originated from?


----------



## T McGibney

Allpartied said:


> Nothing is free, it is all paid for, either individually or communally.
> 
> The way to address inequalities is via a progressive taxation system.
> 
> If older retired people are drowning in cash then tax their income.
> If they hold mutlitple properties then tax those properties.
> If they have an income stream from investments or equities, then tax those sources too.
> 
> If retired people are dying with millions in the bank, then raise death duties too.


Your solution to inequalities seems to be to impoverish everyone?

Why shouldn't retired people who have saved and worked hard throughout their lives be allowed enjoy the fruits of it? 

The alternative of living hand to mouth and worrying about bills in retirement is dystopian.


----------



## Allpartied

T McGibney said:


> Your solution to inequalities seems to be to impoverish everyone?
> 
> Why shouldn't retired people who have saved and worked hard throughout their lives be allowed enjoy the fruits of it?
> 
> The alternative of living hand to mouth and worrying about bills in retirement is dystopian.



i'm not suggesting that, far from it.  

Taxation should apply to all income, to all property and to all wealth. 

If you means test the state pension, or free travel, or access to healthcare, then you do impoverish those who saved, or prepared for their retirement. 
But, of course, parsimony and diligence are only part of the story.  If you have lots of money, lots of property and lots of wealth, you will be able to have a very lavish retirement and so will be able to pay a bit extra for the public services that you use.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Is the notion that the majority of older people are wealthy based on anything other than home ownership?
If so what is it?


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Is the notion that the majority of older people are wealthy based on anything other than home ownership?
> If so what is it?


Wealth is wealth. How people choose to hold that wealth is their business. 
Descressionary income is a different but relevant issue.


----------



## T McGibney

Sophrosyne said:


> Is the notion that the majority of older people are wealthy based on anything other than home ownership?
> If so what is it?


In Ireland, wealthy is having a second horse. 

We're a joke of a country.


----------



## The Horseman

Allpartied said:


> i'm not suggesting that, far from it.
> 
> Taxation should apply to all income, to all property and to all wealth.
> 
> If you means test the state pension, or free travel, or access to healthcare, then you do impoverish those who saved, or prepared for their retirement.
> But, of course, parsimony and diligence are only part of the story.  If you have lots of money, lots of property and lots of wealth, you will be able to have a very lavish retirement and so will be able to pay a bit extra for the public services that you use.


if you discourage people from planning for their future and enjoying the "fruits of their labour" then where do they get income from in retirement? 

At what point do people take responsibility for themselves financially? I appreciate people should not be left to starve but if they make some decisions in life that don't work out for whatever reason why should those who's decisions work out be expected to help those again who's decision did not work out. Is this not what income tax is supposed to cover?

This is a genuine question?


----------



## Allpartied

The Horseman said:


> if you discourage people from planning for their future and enjoying the "fruits of their labour" then where do they get income from in retirement?
> 
> At what point do people take responsibility for themselves financially? I appreciate people should not be left to starve but if they make some decisions in life that don't work out for whatever reason why should those who's decisions work out be expected to help those again who's decision did not work out. Is this not what income tax is supposed to cover?
> 
> This is a genuine question?



If the retiree bought his house in 1995, he's sitting on huge capital appreciation. He can use that to fund his retirement. 

If the retiree bought his house in 2005, he might, by now, have just about recovered to the price he paid for it.  Its possible he has had to extend his mortgage into retirement and will still have to pay it down, when his income is plummeting. 

Retiree number one is not any more talented, or brighter than retiree number two.   He's just benefited from the cycle of capitalist crisis.  So, you can plan all you like, but the system might still shaft you.


----------



## joe sod

Allpartied said:


> If the retiree bought his house in 1995, he's sitting on huge capital appreciation. He can use that to fund his retirement.
> 
> If the retiree bought his house in 2005, he might, by now, have just about recovered to the price he paid for it.  Its possible he has had to extend his mortgage into retirement and will still have to pay it down, when his income is plummeting.
> 
> Retiree number one is not any more talented, or brighter than retiree number two.   He's just benefited from the cycle of capitalist crisis.  So, you can plan all you like, but the system might still shaft you.


But that "capitalist crisis " as you call it is paying for everything,  it pays the social welfare,  the public sector wages, the housing assistance payments  ,the accommodation for the Ukrainian refugees etc etc.
That is all payed for by and large by our capitalist system.  Ireland has benefited more than any country from FDI and it is this that is contributing to the bulk of our taxation. 
Without FDI Ireland would be bankrupt because it pays for everything


----------



## T McGibney

Capitalist crisis my nelly. Government tax and spend crisis more like it. And it's about to get infinitely worse.


----------



## Allpartied

joe sod said:


> But that "capitalist crisis " as you call it is paying for everything,  it pays the social welfare,  the public sector wages, the housing assistance payments  ,the accommodation for the Ukrainian refugees etc etc.
> That is all payed for by and large by our capitalist system.  Ireland has benefited more than any country from FDI and it is this that is contributing to the bulk of our taxation.
> Without FDI Ireland would be bankrupt because it pays for everything


Without wishing to get into an academic argument, I would suggest that  labour pays for everything and creates all wealth.  Its just that some people are very good at exploiting labour, which means that wealth is poorly distributed. So government has to intervene to ensure a more equitable distribution.   Believe me, left to their own devices the multi national, or the million euro salary guys wouldn't hand over one cent. 
I used the phrase crisis, because thats what economists call it and I doubt we could call 2008 anything other than a crisis for capitalism. 

But capitalist cycle works just as well. 
Some people get lucky, some people get burnt.


----------



## The Horseman

Allpartied said:


> If the retiree bought his house in 1995, he's sitting on huge capital appreciation. He can use that to fund his retirement.
> 
> If the retiree bought his house in 2005, he might, by now, have just about recovered to the price he paid for it.  Its possible he has had to extend his mortgage into retirement and will still have to pay it down, when his income is plummeting.
> 
> Retiree number one is not any more talented, or brighter than retiree number two.   He's just benefited from the cycle of capitalist crisis.  So, you can plan all you like, but the system might still shaft you.


But what if you have two retiree's in your number 1 category one who worked bought his house, invested in a pension, live frugally etc and the other enjoyed life to the full and did not plan for their future. Both had the same opportunities. 

Should both be treated the same in your view?


----------



## T McGibney

Allpartied said:


> Without wishing to get into an academic argument, I would suggest that  labour pays for everything and creates all wealth.  Its just that some people are very good at exploiting labour, which means that wealth is poorly distributed. So government has to intervene to ensure a more equitable distribution.   Believe me, left to their own devices the multi national, or the million euro salary guys wouldn't hand over one cent.



Ironically, and to bring this all back on-topic, the best insurance anyone can have against poverty in old age is to be entitled to one of the better public sector pensions.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> But what if you have two retiree's in your number 1 category one who worked bought his house, invested in a pension, live frugally etc and the other enjoyed life to the full and did not plan for their future. Both had the same opportunities.
> 
> Should both be treated the same in your view?


What if the guy who worked hard bought his house, invested in a pension, live frugally etc is the guy who bought the house in 2005?

Taxation and social transfers aren't about fairness, they are about maintaining a reasonably equitable society. 

When we work the State takes a cut of the returns on our labour. How is that more equitable than it taking a cut on wealth generated through capital appreciation that most people had no active role in creating?


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> What if the guy who worked hard bought his house, invested in a pension, live frugally etc is the guy who bought the house in 2005?
> 
> Taxation and social transfers aren't about fairness, they are about maintaining a reasonably equitable society.
> 
> When we work the State takes a cut of the returns on our labour. How is that more equitable than it taking a cut on wealth generated through capital appreciation that most people had no active role in creating?


Try answering the question I asked.


----------



## Groucho

joe sod said:


> @Groucho "hedonistic lifestyle " out of curiosity was it food, sweet things or alcohol related that your diabetes originated from?



All of the above - in addition to little or no exercise.    A lethal combination.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Allpartied said:


> Nothing is free, it is all paid for, either individually or communally.
> 
> The way to address inequalities is via a progressive taxation system.
> 
> If older retired people are drowning in cash then tax their income.
> If they hold mutlitple properties then tax those properties.
> If they have an income stream from investments or equities, then tax those sources too.
> 
> If retired people are dying with millions in the bank, then raise death duties too.



If their income from all sources exceeds €18,000 (single) or €36,000 (married), there is no exemption and they are taxed in the normal way
They pay property taxes based on property value
If they have investment income - see 1.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> Try answering the question I asked.


Okay.


The Horseman said:


> Should both be treated the same in your view?


Yes, because;


Purple said:


> Taxation and social transfers aren't about fairness, they are about maintaining a reasonably equitable society.



I've been working fulltime for over 30 years and during that time I've averaged well over 50 hours a week. I pay half my total income in tax. I've no real problem with that as I'm well paid and taxes are the price of civilisation. I do have a problem with the amount of my money the State wastes but that's a different issue.

The current structures around wealth tax suit me as I got on the property ladder before the boom and I had a pension before QE started. Timing has made me over a half a million euro in capital appreciation. I don't think it is fair that I should get that tax free when labour is taxed so heavily. It is a recipe for a very unequal society.


Your turn.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> If their income from all sources exceeds €18,000 (single) or €36,000 (married), there is no exemption and they are taxed in the normal way


But with higher allowances and fewer taxes levied than on younger people. 


Sophrosyne said:


> They pay property taxes based on property value


Property tax (the only wealth tax that can realistically be collected) is extremely low in this country.


----------



## Allpartied

T McGibney said:


> Ironically, and to bring this all back on-topic, the best insurance anyone can have against poverty in old age is to be entitled to one of the better public sector pensions.



Thats true, in the sense that it protects against poverty.   But the average public sector pension is around 10k, on top of the state pension.  So, a pretty modest income.


----------



## LS400

Purple said:


> I got on the property ladder before the boom and I had a pension before QE started. Timing has made me over a half a million euro in capital appreciation. I don't think it is fair that I should get that tax free when labour is taxed so heavily.



Why, you took the (risk) investment, were you told you would earn half a mill when you took on the challenge of purchasing the property?




Purple said:


> Property tax (the only wealth tax that can realistically be collected) is extremely low in this country.


In isolation, maybe, but grouped with all other taxes? Really


----------



## Peanuts20

I do think the title of the thread is potentially a little misleading. 

Reality is that some retired people are well off, many are not, especially those on the state pension only. In a lot of cases, they were never given the opportunity to work or contribute to a private pension simply because they were women and the culture of Ireland and the law (the ban on married women working) meant their job was to mind the house, husband and kids. 

Those who are well off, paid off their mortgage, got a good pension or invested their time and money wisely pay income tax on that income. 

Many have their asssets and income taken as part of the fair deal scheme (I'm not complaining about that but it is a fact and the one thing I've learnt in the last number of years is the importance of retirement planning and potentially gifting/moving assets so they fall outside of the remit of that scheme


----------



## Purple

LS400 said:


> Why, you took the (risk) investment, were you told you would earn half a mill when you took on the challenge of purchasing the property?


No, I bought somewhere to live. I did buy my first place prior to EMU because I though that prices would go up but not by as much as they did. 


LS400 said:


> In isolation, maybe, but grouped with all other taxes? Really


No, but that's the point I was making. We tax wealth creation at a very high rate but we don't tax capital appreciation on wealth retention much at all. I like to see that rebalanced.


----------



## Purple

Peanuts20 said:


> Reality is that some retired people are well off, many are not, especially those on the state pension only


Most live on more than the State pension. The minority who rely on it alone are certainly not well off.


----------



## Bluefin

Purple said:


> No, I bought somewhere to live


This is the critical point Purple...we all just bought a home to live in. Our main concern was ensuring we were employed and could afford the mortgage payments. I'd imagine most of us never really thought about capital appreciation... It has happened. Just because there's equity in our homes,this  does not make these people wealthy 

_Imagine if these people were logical...take all the equity from their home and live way beyond their means in the early stages of retirement (which is quite easy to do..think 3 star versus 5 star, fab hols, top ev car, meals out etc) 

Money is all gone quite quickly..they fall back on the state for all there needs.. Utopia! _


----------



## Purple

Bluefin said:


> Just because there's equity in our homes, this does not make these people wealthy


But it does. If we own our own home then we don't have the cost of rent or mortgage payments. It gives us money to leave to our children. It gives us the option of downsizing. It gives us options and financial freedom.


----------



## Deiseblue

We bought our house in 1994 and it’s now worth in excess of 6 times what we paid for it but hey it’s where we live and where we intend to continue living as the location is excellent , our friends are close by and most of all because we are happy there .
As such it cannot partially  fund our retirement.
We pay tax on our pensions both defined benefit and state and on our house and investment income and although it would be disappointing if means testing , PRSI and USC became  a factor for OAP’s we would pay it , easy to say I know as the chances of that happening are nil in the foreseeable future.


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> Okay.
> 
> Yes, because;
> 
> 
> I've been working fulltime for over 30 years and during that time I've averaged well over 50 hours a week. I pay half my total income in tax. I've no real problem with that as I'm well paid and taxes are the price of civilisation. I do have a problem with the amount of my money the State wastes but that's a different issue.
> 
> The current structures around wealth tax suit me as I got on the property ladder before the boom and I had a pension before QE started. Timing has made me over a half a million euro in capital appreciation. I don't think it is fair that I should get that tax free when labour is taxed so heavily. It is a recipe for a very unequal society.
> 
> 
> Your turn.


Perhaps the way money is spent should be reviewed and there may not be a need to tax wealth then. 

If the above were undertaken it may make your argument null and void. 

I am in a similar position go you and I made significant sacrifices of my free time to get myself into a position that I am in.

People are offered multiple supports in terms of training to better their prospects. The aim of which is to reduce people's dependency on the State throughout their life. 

A bit of forward thinking can result in a comfortable retirement. If what you want were to occur then why would people bother if what they worked for will end up being taken away from them.


----------



## Bluefin

This is why I believe Brendan is examining idea's to improve home ownership...renting in retirement would be a complete disaster for Irish society and lead to extreme poverty for some. Our pension system's have been designed around house ownership or council provided housing for life....if these criteria are not met it's trouble for us all..


----------



## Peanuts20

Purple said:


> Most live on more than the State pension. The minority who rely on it alone are certainly not well off.


Vast (and I mean 75% +) of pensioners I know are on some version of the state/widows pension. In my family out of 7 uncles/aunts and their spouses, only 2 had a company or private pension.  It may be starting to change as the "boomers" move to pension age but not for the previous generation.


----------



## blanketyblank

As a single public servant with only one income coming into my house and not far from retirement I dont feel I'd classify myself as wealthy when I retire!   In fact I think I'm probably going to have to work at something part time to keep the show on the road.


----------



## Allpartied

Sophrosyne said:


> If their income from all sources exceeds €18,000 (single) or €36,000 (married), there is no exemption and they are taxed in the normal way
> They pay property taxes based on property value
> If they have investment income - see 1.


Which is the point I am making. 
The taxation system will deal with excessive wealth in the retired age group. 
Rather than means-testing pensions, or medical cards, or free travel. 


The headline in this post is that the older generation are at a lower risk of poverty than other generations.  Some posters seem to think this is  a bad thing, the retirees should be targeted and their perceived priveleges removed.


----------



## LS400

Allpartied said:


> Some posters seem to think this is a bad thing, the retirees should be targeted and their perceived priveleges removed.




It is a bad thing,

Il be retired one day, 

Among my pals, Im the only one with property, and private pension to see me through in a comfortable existence until the state pension kicks in.

I don't begrudge them one bit when they skip off on a few hols a year, or have the latest jammer to drive around in. They plan on living off the state pension when the time comes, Ive had talks with them over a pint, they think I'm mad, sure the state will look after them... Maybe they are right!! 

No poor mouth here, but I don't drive the newest car at all, am working all hours to pay for the future, and when Friday comes, they find it hard to believe im still working into the evening and not taken half day to  hook up for a game of golf..


----------



## Allpartied

LS400 said:


> It is a bad thing,
> 
> Il be retired one day,
> 
> Among my pals, Im the only one with property, and private pension to see me through in a comfortable existence until the state pension kicks in.
> 
> I don't begrudge them one bit when they skip off on a few hols a year, or have the latest jammer to drive around in. They plan on living off the state pension when the time comes, Ive had talks with them over a pint, they think I'm mad, sure the state will look after them... Maybe they are right!!
> 
> No poor mouth here, but I don't drive the newest car at all, am working all hours to pay for the future, and when Friday comes, they find it hard to believe im still working into the evening and not taken half day to  hook up for a game of golf..



Existence on the state pension and other welfare assistance, is subsistence level.  You should be able to pay the bills, get enough food, heat and shelter. An occasional meal in a nice restaurant.  Maybe a couple of pints down the local.  A week in Torremolinos.   But you won't be skiing down Mont Blanc, or cruising round the Caribbean .
Some people prefer to spend their money today and enjoy life to the full.  I suppose , if they make that judgement, its a valid one.


----------



## Sophrosyne

LS400 said:


> It is a bad thing,
> 
> Il be retired one day,
> 
> Among my pals, Im the only one with property, and private pension to see me through in a comfortable existence until the state pension kicks in.
> 
> I don't begrudge them one bit when they skip off on a few hols a year, or have the latest jammer to drive around in. They plan on living off the state pension when the time comes, Ive had talks with them over a pint, they think I'm mad, sure the state will look after them... Maybe they are right!!
> 
> No poor mouth here, but I don't drive the newest car at all, am working all hours to pay for the future, and when Friday comes, they find it hard to believe im still working into the evening and not taken half day to hook up for a game of golf..



Well, the way this thread is going, _you _and not your pals will be considered "wealthy" and fair game for the lay tax tinkerers.
Your pals have no property and will rely solely on the State pension.


----------



## PMU

Deiseblue said:


> There are 7 of us who are friends since schooldays , all retired from what are essentially seen as middle class jobs teachers,  bankers , a bakery owner and a cafe owner.
> All married with spouses retired or just about to retire from very similar type jobs.
> At a recent night out we were discussing our respective financial situations and the common consensus was that each of our households , give or take , were netting an income of approximately €5,000 a month
> We all were extremely grateful and realise that we are lucky in that this largesse cannot continue into the future although we should be OK .
> Perhaps means testing is the way forward.


You’ve nothing to be grateful about; you are not ‘lucky’. Nobody handed this to you. I suggest you have achieved your good fortune through study, hard work, prudent money management, delayed consumption, good risk assessment, etc. In the real world, i.e. not in Ireland, this is the norm. People work hard, save and subsequently enjoy their savings. And they can pass the surplus on to their descendants (or to the cats’ and dogs’ home). Stop apologising and enjoy the fruits of your labour.




T McGibney said:


> Ironically, and to bring this all back on-topic, the best insurance anyone can have against poverty in old age is to be entitled to one of the better public sector pensions.


It’s not “entitlement”. It’s part of your terms and conditions of employment. You earn it. To obtain a public sector pension first you need the relevant technical and professional qualifications and be recruited by an open recruitment process by the Public Appointments Commission or by public bodies compliant with the Commission for Public Service Employment. You just can’t waltz in because your Uncle Johnny puts in a good word for you or because you’re good at certain sports. Then you have to work there until you are 66 and pay your 6.5% of salary contribution. So if you believe a public service pension is the best insurance against poverty in old age, all you have to do is be successful in a recruitment competition; obtain a public service job and work. Then you get your career-averaged pension.

The problem with this report is it unbelievably badly structured and does not provide clear guidance for policy making, and is open to misinterpretation.  It also spends 10 pages of flag-waving on headline-grabbing 'intergenerational inequality', while not highlighting  evidence provided in the report on chronic poverty.  For example, elsewhere the report points out that lone parents and working-age adults living in households without anyone in paid work experience both income poverty and material deprivation, and that this has been a feature of Irish society since the 1990s.  This is a shocking indictment of our society. But the report in its Conclusions just refers to other research that "suggests" it's due to the increasing cost of childcare.   This is just a throwaway.  If childcare costs are a solution, even partial, to longstanding experience of poverty, it really should be dealt with in greater detail, to demonstrate it is a viable solution. 

Amazingly, the report doesn’t mention disability as a risk factor for poverty, despite clear evidence in the UK that children of families with a disabled person have a higher risk of poverty than children of families of without a disable person.  And minorities, who, in other countries, are more likely to live in poverty that natives, get a one word mention in the section on Intergenerational inequality, which has nothing to do with minorities. 

So, overall, a nice try, but needs significant improvement.


----------



## T McGibney

PMU said:


> It’s not “entitlement”. It’s part of your terms and conditions of employment. You earn it. To obtain a public sector pension first you need the relevant technical and professional qualifications and be recruited by an open recruitment process by the Public Appointments Commission or by public bodies compliant with the Commission for Public Service Employment. You just can’t waltz in because your Uncle Johnny puts in a good word for you or because you’re good at certain sports. Then you have to work there until you are 66 and pay your 6.5% of salary contribution. So if you believe a public service pension is the best insurance against poverty in old age, all you have to do is be successful in a recruitment competition; obtain a public service job and work. Then you get your career-averaged pension.


Of course it's an entitlement. Look up the definition of the word. It's a matter of fact, not a perjorative.

(By the way, lots of people in receipt of such pensions did indeed waltz in because their Uncle Johnny put in a good word for them or because they were good at certain sports.  And lots of others with similar skills and employments don't enjoy comparable pensions in retirement. )


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

T McGibney said:


> Of course it's an entitlement. Look up the definition of the word. It's a matter of fact, not a perjorative.



It's an accrued property right. I technically have an "entitlement" to live in my own house but it would be silly to describe it as such. Your use of the term was pejorative.



T McGibney said:


> (By the way, lots of people in receipt of such pensions did indeed waltz in because their Uncle Johnny put in a good word for them or because they were good at certain sports.  And lots of others with similar skills and employments don't enjoy comparable pensions in retirement. )


You clearly have zero idea of how PS recruitment works.


----------



## newirishman

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> You clearly have zero idea of how PS recruitment works.



Today (or this century) this is indeed different. Back in the 70ies or 80ies though?


----------



## arbitron

PMU said:


> You’ve nothing to be grateful about; you are not ‘lucky’. Nobody handed this to you. I suggest you have achieved your good fortune through study, hard work, prudent money management, delayed consumption, good risk assessment, etc. In the real world, i.e. not in Ireland, this is the norm. People work hard, save and subsequently enjoy their savings. And they can pass the surplus on to their descendants (or to the cats’ and dogs’ home). Stop apologising and enjoy the fruits of your labour.



This is very hard to believe.

Being born in Ireland automatically gives huge advantages and that is pure luck. Genetics determines potential IQ - this is the luck of the draw. Born into a stable family life with supportive parents? Lucky again. Grandparents were wealthy and left you some cash to get started in life = huge advantage which you did nothing to earn. No major health issues, a lot of luck involved. And so on and so forth.

An individual's control over and contribution to their own success is far less than people think.

Depending on where you land in the cycle one could easily become either a canny investor who made all the right moves, or a risk-taking irresponsible gambler who lost it all. Again, a question of luck/timing in many cases.


----------



## T McGibney

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It's an accrued property right. I technically have an "entitlement" to live in my own house but it would be silly to describe it as such. Your use of the term was pejorative.
> 
> 
> You clearly have zero idea of how PS recruitment works.


Wrong on both counts.

A property right is something you accrue by dint of owning or occupying property. eg "a legal right or interest in or against specific property", not via occupational service.

You're really denying that public sector recruitment in the 1960s to the 1980s (the period of recruitment of the generations who broadly speaking are collecting pensions now) was riddled by nepotism and politics? Wow.


----------



## Groucho

newirishman said:


> Today (or this century) this is indeed different. Back in the 70ies or 80ies though?





T McGibney said:


> Wrong on both counts.
> 
> You're really denying that public sector recruitment in the 1960s to the 1980s (the period of recruitment of the generations who broadly speaking are collecting pensions now) was riddled by nepotism and politics? Wow.



And WOW right back at you!

I can't speak for the wider public sector (although I have heard stories about things that stank - especially in the VECs), but the only incidences of political interference that I can recall occurring in the civil service were at the very bottom levels of the organisation where Ministers occasionally interfered with appointments to posts like Messenger (now called Service Attendant) and Cleaner (now called Cleaner!).    The Civil Service Commission (as it was then called) was an excellent organisation which took its responsibilities very seriously - although some internal Departmental promotions were a different story! 

I was involved with one Departmental decentralisation where all such appointments were simply referred to the local (high profile) government TD for filling.   One individual turned up for interview and, on his way in, informed the interview board that he was starting work there on the following Monday!


----------



## T McGibney

Groucho said:


> I can't speak for the wider public sector (although I have heard stories about things that stank - especially in the VECs),


Thanks for conceding my point.




Groucho said:


> And WOW right back at you!


Ditto


----------



## Sophrosyne

@PMU I agree that the report is not the best and does not serve to inform policy.

Isn't is astonishing how two charts on depravation rates translate to some as pensioners are rich.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

T McGibney said:


> Wrong on both counts.
> 
> A property right is something you accrue by dint of owning or occupying property. eg "a legal right or interest in or against specific property", not via occupational service.



A property right does not have to involve real property. DB pensions are an accrued property right. The holder has exclusive rights over how the pension can be spent once retirement age is reached. No Irish public servant has (to my knowledge) ever had their pension garnished even for gross abuse or corruption. It is a property right.



T McGibney said:


> You're really denying that public sector recruitment in the 1960s to the 1980s (the period of recruitment of the generations who broadly speaking are collecting pensions now) was riddled by nepotism and politics? Wow.


Civil service recruitment was during that period done by way of anonymously-marked exam. As I said you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## noproblem

Why do people who never qualified to get a public service job always show their jealousy towards those that did actually get the job? They always take the posts off topic and ruin the conversation for those who really want to discuss the points brought up. The usual suspects don't take long putting their heads above the parapet. Always public v private, gets really monotonous and serves no purpose whatsoever.


----------



## T McGibney

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> A property right does not have to involve real property. DB pensions are an accrued property right. The holder has exclusive rights over how the pension can be spent once retirement age is reached. No Irish public servant has (to my knowledge) ever had their pension garnished even for gross abuse or corruption. It is a property right.


The Garda Representative Association disagrees with you.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland...igation-after-moody-sentence-gra-1341938.html



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Civil service recruitment was during that period done by way of anonymously-marked exam. As I said you have no idea what you are talking about.


You keep mentioning the civil service, but my earlier comments and those of others clearly referred to the wider public sector.

It wasn't for nothing that there was an old joke in our county a few decades ago that in one area, the home turf of a former govt Minister, now deceased, that all the tall fellas were sent off to be Guards and all the short fellas were put to work in the Posts and Telegraphs.


----------



## Purple

Peanuts20 said:


> Vast (and I mean 75% +) of pensioners I know are on some version of the state/widows pension. In my family out of 7 uncles/aunts and their spouses, only 2 had a company or private pension.  It may be starting to change as the "boomers" move to pension age but not for the previous generation.


That may well be the case but it's not reflective of the population at large. It is true to say that the older the pensioner is the more likely they are to be poor. That's very striking in the statistics. 

This report gives excellent details of the actual breakdowns.
It doesn't seem to allow for the cost of housing but it does talk about material deprivation which kind of covers that.


----------



## ashambles

T McGibney said:


> The Garda Representative Association disagrees with you.
> https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland...igation-after-moody-sentence-gra-1341938.html


"When asked about public concern that Moody would retain his Garda pension, Mr O’Connor said he could understand such thinking, but any change would require legislation."

I'm not sure if they do disagree that it's a property right? And it would require a referendum not just legislation, I think.

A garda 20+ years ago had his pension stopped (some serious crime involved), a court decided the pension was deferred income already received and constitutionally protected by property rights so he got it back. It was seen an important case at the time in terms of clarifying the status of pensions in Ireland. (I'll post a link if I can find one)

Obviously that was ignored when it came to the private pension levy -  actual deferred income has lower status to notional deferred income .


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

ashambles said:


> Obviously that was ignored when it came to the private pension levy - actual deferred income has lower status to notional deferred income .


That was de facto a tax.

Public sector workers paid an additional levy on their incomes as well (the "pension-related deduction") which was also de facto a tax.


----------



## Laramie

ashambles said:


> a court decided the pension was deferred income already received and constitutionally protected by property rights so he got it back.


I worked in the Bank of Ireland for 15 years.  I left to go to another financial institution. The Bank of Ireland refused to give me any pension for the 15 years I worked there, deferred or otherwise.  It was a non-contributory pension.  Apparently, there was a clause in my pension booklet that said, if I leave my job at any time my pension will be forfeited.

I have no idea what happened to the money that was set aside for me.


----------



## Itchy

Laramie said:


> I worked in the Bank of Ireland for 15 years.  I left to go to another financial institution. The Bank of Ireland refused to give me any pension for the 15 years I worked there, deferred or otherwise.  It was a non-contributory pension.  Apparently, there was a clause in my pension booklet that said, if I leave my job at any time my pension will be forfeited.
> 
> I have no idea what happened to the money that was set aside for me.


Presumably you read the pension booklet and found said clause? Was that clause was in compliance with the Pensions Act?


----------



## Purple

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Public sector workers paid an additional levy on their incomes as well (the "pension-related deduction") which was also de facto a tax.


It was indeed. A pay cut would have been more equitable as it would have resulted in a corresponding reduction in the pension payments to retired public servants who are, as we know, at a low risk of poverty.


----------



## Threadser

Purple said:


> a corresponding reduction in the pension payments to retired public servants who are, as we know, at a low risk of poverty.


Any statistics to back up this sweeping generalisation?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Purple said:


> it would have resulted in a corresponding reduction in the pension payments to retired public servants who are, as we know,


There was an equivalent levy on public service pensions (PSPR) in payment as well.

https://www.rtaireland.ie/pensions-2/public-service-pension-reduction-pspr/


----------



## Groucho

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> There was an equivalent levy on public service pensions (PSPR) in payment as well.
> 
> https://www.rtaireland.ie/pensions-2/public-service-pension-reduction-pspr/



Yep, mine was reduced by 6%.   Had to let one of the servants go and cancel the golf club membership.  But I put on a brave face and carried on.


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> Yep, mine was reduced by 6%.   Had to let one of the servants go and cancel the golf club membership.  But I put on a brave face and carried on.


Is the little woman able to take up the slack without her other duties suffering?


----------



## ashambles

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> There was an equivalent levy on public service pensions (PSPR) in payment as well.
> 
> https://www.rtaireland.ie/pensions-2/public-service-pension-reduction-pspr/


The private pension levy (~3%) has reduced ordinary private sector DC pensions until maybe around 2060 when the people affected die out -  most people affected have not even begun drawing down their pension yet, whereas all people affected by PSPR would now be eligible to be back on full pensions.

They're not unconnected but not equivalent.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

ashambles said:


> They're not unconnected but not equivalent.



I wasn't claiming they were.

I was making the link between the pension-related deduction (PRD) imposed on public service workers in employment and the public service pension reduction (PSPR) imposed on public service retirees. A poster had implied that there was no levy on public service retirees, and I was correcting this.


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> Is the little woman able to take up the slack without her other duties suffering?



Well, it was her golf club membership that I cancelled - so that gave her more time!


----------



## MrEarl

Retired people may suddenly find themselves at significant risk, if the young people start to emergrate!

... Someone has to pay the taxes, to fund the generous pensions promised to former state employees etc.


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> Well, it was her golf club membership that I cancelled - so that gave her more time!


Brilliant.

I hope you aren't considering cancelling your own membership.


----------



## Threadser

MrEarl said:


> Someone has to pay the taxes, to fund the generous pensions promised to former state employees etc.


And don't forget the generous state pension entitlement of non state employees who pay a minimum 10 years PRSI contributions towards the cost. The benefit is huge compared to the level of contribution. Drastic reform needed so that all workers contribute more towards this entitlement. State workers employed since 2013 have already had their pension contribution rates raised significantly and pension entitlement reduced. A married couple who make no pension provision other than paying PRSI are entitled under current rules to a joint pension from the state of €25,000 per year from aged 66.


----------



## Groucho

Threadser said:


> And don't forget the generous state pension entitlement of non state employees who pay a minimum 10 years PRSI contributions towards the cost. The benefit is huge compared to the level of contribution. Drastic reform needed so that all workers contribute more towards this entitlement. State workers employed since 2013 have already had their pension contribution rates raised significantly and pension entitlement reduced. A married couple who make no pension provision other than paying PRSI are entitled under current rules to a joint pension from the state of €25,000 per year from aged 66.



The "drastic reform" being proposed by the unqualified, populist economic gurus in Sinn Féin is to lower the State pension age back down to 65!    

I'm feeling a bit sorry for the magic money trees growing in Pearse's allotment - they must be under huge pressure to produce fruit!


----------



## Purple

Threadser said:


> And don't forget the generous state pension entitlement of non state employees who pay a minimum 10 years PRSI contributions towards the cost. The benefit is huge compared to the level of contribution. Drastic reform needed so that all workers contribute more towards this entitlement.


Very important point. While many of us, me included, point out how generous the pensions are for pre-95 State employees the real issue is the standard State pension. The vast majority of working people don't contribute enough in PRSI to fund the State pension they receive. Reforms are needed and the longer we wait the more extreme they will need to be, there's no way around it. 


Threadser said:


> State workers employed since 2013 have already had their pension contribution rates raised significantly and pension entitlement reduced.


Post-2013 State employees have a much less attractive pension.
When that cohort retire a large proportion of them will not own their home and they will have far less generous pensions.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Very important point. While many of us, me included, point out how generous the pensions are for pre-95 State employees the real issue is the standard State pension. The vast majority of working people don't contribute enough in PRSI to fund the State pension they receive. Reforms are needed and the longer we wait the more extreme they will need to be, there's no way around it.


And every time amount of the State pension is raised, the worse the problem and the more difficult the ultimate reforms are going to be.


----------



## jfrank

Purple said:


> That's because as a cohort they are rich and under taxed. There was a time when they were poor and needed support and we constructed our taxation and welfare structure accordingly. Now they are rich and don't need those supports but the structures remain the same.
> A far more targeted approach is necessary. Things like free travel and medical cards should be means tested. They should pay the full rate of PRSI since it's very unlikely that they contributed enough to fund their State pension over their working life. Social transfers should be given to those who needs them, not to those who don't.
> 
> I'm sure there'll be lots of the usual "I/they worked hard all their life" entitled nonsense in response.


I often thought that the state pension should be divided into two elements;
a) a basic minimum,, say €180 - €200pw and
b) a means-tested top-up for the remaining €70pw

I have no mathematical basis for picking the rates but its illustrative. I think Michael O'Leary has previously ridiculed that he will get the full standard rate of €253.30pw in due course. Yes, I know civil servants hate the idea of means-testing (too much work!) but the principle of paying €253.30pw to everybody regardless of their wealth seems crazy


----------



## T McGibney

jfrank said:


> I often thought that the state pension should be divided into two elements;
> a) a basic minimum,, say €180 - €200pw and
> b) a means-tested top-up for the remaining €70pw
> 
> I have no mathematical basis for picking the rates but its illustrative. I think Michael O'Leary has previously ridiculed that he will get the full standard rate of €253.30pw in due course. Yes, I know civil servants hate the idea of means-testing (too much work!) but the principle of paying €253.30pw to everybody regardless of their wealth seems crazy


Means testing is a recipe for poverty traps and all sorts of anomalies. For example, at the moment, SUSI is docking 2022/23 third level grants for students who earn more than €4,000 a year from summer or part-time work.


----------



## jfrank

T McGibney said:


> Means testing is a recipe for poverty traps and all sorts of anomalies. For example, at the moment, SUSI is docking 2022/23 third level grants for students who earn more than €4,000 a year from summer or part-time work.


I get that but the principle of giving for example Michael O'Leary a state benefit of €253.30pw is bizarre notwithstanding he has paid his full quota of PRSI contributions. I am not sure how actuarily sound a 4% PRSI funding rate is for a quasi index-linked benefit of €253.30pw?


----------



## T McGibney

jfrank said:


> I get that but the principle of giving for example Michael O'Leary a state benefit of €253.30pw is bizarre notwithstanding he has paid his full quota of PRSI contributions. I am not sure how actuarily sound a 4% PRSI funding rate is for a quasi index-linked benefit of €253.30pw?


And I get your point too. The problem is that with all the bureaucracy, it's nearly cheaper and definitely easier to give O'Leary the extra few bob and be done with it.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> And I get your point too. The problem is that with all the bureaucracy, it's nearly cheaper and definitely easier to give O'Leary the extra few bob and be done with it.


The State transfers funds using a leaky bucket. It's the same everywhere but we don't pay enough attention to it.


----------



## Threadser

Only those who have 28 years service or more in the PS/CS are on the pre 95 public sector pensions. That cohort of staff in teaching for example have paid a 5% pension contribution plus 1.5% spouses and childrens contribution (regardless of whether they have either!) from day one of their working lives. They also now pay the also pay the ASC if still in service. Yes it is a generous benefit to which  anyone under the age of 50 will not be entitled. However they have always contributed . All workers need to be mandated to contribute towards their state pension entitlement on a more realistic basis.


----------



## Groucho

jfrank said:


> Yes, I know civil servants hate the idea of means-testing (too much work!) but the principle of paying €253.30pw to everybody regardless of their wealth seems crazy



Civil Servants will do what they're paid to do.  And they don't formulate the policies - that's what the "legislators" (don't laugh) in Leinster House are paid to do!  
Civil Servants' main objections to means tests is that there are too many of them as it is.    And they're all different!    I recall someone once telling me that there are about three dozen of them across the public service - all introduced by those same legislators!     

Naming a few off the top of my head, there's one for a medical card, another for HAP/Rent Allowance, another for SUSI, another for jobseekers' allowance, another for Disability Allowance, another for the non-Contributory State Pension ....   and so on.    It's ridiculous.


----------



## jpd

This is done much better elsewhere - in France, for example, your income tax assessment has a figure "Reference Income level" calculated which is used for most means tested payments


----------



## MrEarl

jfrank said:


> I often thought that the state pension should be divided into two elements;
> a) a basic minimum,, say €180 - €200pw and
> b) a means-tested top-up for the remaining €70pw
> 
> I have no mathematical basis for picking the rates but its illustrative. I think Michael O'Leary has previously ridiculed that he will get the full standard rate of €253.30pw in due course. Yes, I know civil servants hate the idea of means-testing (too much work!) but the principle of paying €253.30pw to everybody regardless of their wealth seems crazy


Hello, 

I disagree with that. 

Let those on higher incomes pay more tax during their years working, but don't then penalise them for paying that tax.


----------



## Itchy

jfrank said:


> I think Michael O'Leary has previously ridiculed that he will get the full standard rate of €253.30pw in due course



Seems that a good outcome for him then would be to increase tax sufficiently so that he feels like he deserves it.


----------



## Protocol

Some suggestions to re-balance supports slightly away from over 65s:

(1) do not remove FTP, as that is too political / too tangible / very well-known
(2) do not remove GP Visit Card

Tax measures
(3) abolish the 18k/36k exemption
(4) abolish the DIRT exemption
(5) abolish the Age tax credit
(6) abolish the lower rates of USC

(7) maybe make the GMS medical card means-test a bit stricter


----------



## Groucho

Protocol said:


> Some suggestions to re-balance supports slightly away from over 65s:
> 
> (1) do not remove FTP, as that is too political / too tangible / very well-known
> (2) do not remove GP Visit Card
> 
> Tax measures
> (3) abolish the 18k/36k exemption
> (4) abolish the DIRT exemption
> (5) abolish the Age tax credit
> (6) abolish the lower rates of USC
> 
> (7) maybe make the GMS medical card means-test a bit stricter



Any opinion on the HBP?   Why should I (and Enda Kenny and Bertie and Michael D Higgins) get free TV licences and some free electricity every month when we're well able to pay for it from our own resources?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Groucho said:


> Any opinion on the HBP? Why should I (and Enda Kenny and Bertie and Michael D Higgins) get free TV licences and some free electricity every month when we're well able to pay for it from our own resources?


I support the idea of a flat-rate state pension as an anti-poverty measure and to ensure that everyone who pays in gets something out. But the *universal benefits *that kick in for over-70s are very hard to justify from any kind of equity perspective.


Means testing is complicated and time consuming of course but by the time  you've got to 70 your income is generally stable and wealth is declining. A single means test at 70 with periodic reassessments would make a lot of sense and there isn't huge risk of overpayment they way there is with young people whose income is much more volatile.


----------



## Groucho

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I support the idea of a flat-rate state pension as an anti-poverty measure and to ensure that everyone who pays in gets something out. But the *universal benefits *that kick in for over-70s are very hard to justify from any kind of equity perspective.
> 
> 
> Means testing is complicated and time consuming of course but by the time  you've got to 70 your income is generally stable and wealth is declining. A single means test at 70 with periodic reassessments would make a lot of sense and there isn't huge risk of overpayment they way there is with young people whose income is much more volatile.



Consideration could be given to giving it to anyone on the n-c State pension and making it subject to a means test for people receiving the full State Contrib Pension.  

But only for newbies of course!   We oldies must be allowed to keep it!


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> But only for newbies of course! We oldies must be allowed to keep it!


But of course! 
It's like the old question, "Who are the rich?" The answer is "Anyone who has more than me."


----------



## I'm Nobody

Is that not the way of the world.
The pensioners of today were poor when they were in their 20's.
I know I was.


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> But of course!
> It's like the old question, "Who are the rich?" The answer is "Anyone who has more than me."



If you look at it dispassionately, doesn't it make you all warm inside to know that I'm a beneficiary of a small portion of all of the taxes that you pay?     (Not forgetting your employer's generous PRSI contribution, of course!)


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> If you look at it dispassionately, doesn't it make you all warm inside to know that I'm a beneficiary of a small portion of all of the taxes that you pay?     (Not forgetting your employer's generous PRSI contribution, of course!)


But of course it does! 
If it didn't go to you it could be wasted on scoliosis operations or mental health services. Mind you the girls and boys working in the Health Service are experts at wasting money so even if they got it they'd probably manage to use it to not help anyone. Yes, it's probably better going to the idle rich like yourself. At least you appreciate it.


----------



## Purple

I'm Nobody said:


> Is that not the way of the world.
> The pensioners of today were poor when they were in their 20's.
> I know I was.


Sure, but so were pensioners back then. We construct our taxation and social police as if that was still the case when clearly it isn't. That's what this thread is about.
I've been working for over 30 years. I did 60-70 hour weeks for years. I worked 7 days a week. I cycled 10 miles to and from work while working 14 hour days. Etc etc, blah, blah, blah. It's still much harder to be young now. Much harder.


----------



## I'm Nobody

I've worked 7 days a week as well. 
My first wage in 1973 was 8 pounds a week.
Most People now have stuff,  too much of it, that they don't need we had nothing in the 60's and 70's.
Where I am living now there were people living in mud huts against a ditch in the 1960's in Ireland.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

I'm Nobody said:


> Most People now have stuff,  too much of it, that they don't need we had nothing in the 60's and 70's.


I think you'll find that people renting a box room in a shared house for example do not have much stuff, and they probably have no assets either.


----------



## I'm Nobody

Better than living in a ditch!


----------



## Purple

I'm Nobody said:


> I've worked 7 days a week as well.
> My first wage in 1973 was 8 pounds a week.


That was a good wage. My fist wage in 1990 was a pound an hour. 


I'm Nobody said:


> Most People now have stuff,  too much of it, that they don't need we had nothing in the 60's and 70's.


House prices have more than doubled n real terms since then. Your home is by far the most important piece of "stuff" you'll ever own.


I'm Nobody said:


> Where I am living now there were people living in mud huts against a ditch in the 1960's in Ireland.


Really? How many of them? Was it some sort of a cult or a monastic settlement?
I know that Travellers were treated appallingly in the 60's and 70's, even worse than they are today, but were there even many of them living in mud huts?

This thread is about the relative wealth of older people, not who had what 50 years ago.
People who got on the property latter in the mid to late 80's are most likely to have made the biggest gains from the last and current property booms.


----------



## Purple

I'm Nobody said:


> Better than living in a ditch!


Yes, it's also better than being burned to death or assaulted or murdered and having your skin turned into a lampshade. So what?


----------



## I'm Nobody

Well its a bit extreme as an example, but I'll agree with you that living in a box room is better than the holocaust.
A pound an hour well done.
Not Travellers or a cult, just an ordinary family.
The point I am trying to make, obviously badly, is that pensioners that are well off today, were not well off when they were young and that is the way the world works.
,


----------



## Groucho

I'm Nobody said:


> The point I am trying to make, obviously badly, is that pensioners that are well off today, were not well off when they were young and that is the way the world works.



My parents weren't particularly well off, yet they still had a succession of 'housemaids' when I was a toddler in the late 1950's.     (I suspect that they came from an orphanage, the poor things.)    It never struck as me as odd until it was too late to ask them about it.   A different world back in those dark days.


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> My parents weren't particularly well off, yet they still had a succession of 'housemaids' when I was a toddler in the late 1950's.     (I suspect that they came from an orphanage, the poor things.)    It never struck as me as odd until it was too late to ask them about it.   A different world back in those dark days.


Wow. I've always said that if you want middle income families to feel well off you need a dirt poor underclass to work for them. That's what they have in the USA. We don't have it so we have a squeezed middle. I'd rather have the latter.


----------



## Purple

I'm Nobody said:


> The point I am trying to make, obviously badly, is that pensioners that are well off today, were not well off when they were young and that is the way the world works.


And I'm saying is that our taxation and social policy was designed at a time when most pensioners were poor but now most are not so we should change it accordingly.


----------



## PMU

I honestly think the ESRI’s document needs to be looked at critically.

For example, Eurostat (Statistics | Eurostat (europa.eu)) tells us that the % of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion, in the 16 – 29 age bracket, in Ireland, declined from 31.35 % in 2015 to 19.0% in 2021, an achievement of which we should be proud.
Whereas for those aged 65 and older, the % of persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion, increased from 15.6% to 21.3% in the same period.

[I'm having difficulty inserting screen shots of the above but you can confirm them from the Eurostat data browser at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/datab...gory&extractionId=ILC_PEPS01N__custom_3344568. ]

Now I am certain there are good reasons why the ESRI’s figures differ from those of Eurostat. But that’s for them to explain, but it would be unwise to use this report without a critical eye.


Allpartied said:


> The headline in this post is that the older generation are at a lower risk of poverty than other generations.  Some posters seem to think this is  a bad thing, the retirees should be targeted and their perceived priveleges removed.


This is an important point. Retirees are at risk, in a way others are not, that they lack the wherewithal to mitigate the risk of declining standards of living or even poverty. Simply because they do not or cannot work, or have other streams of income. The ESRI seem to be ignorant of this basic fact of life in their report.
Younger persons can always reduce the risk of lower living standards/poverty by work; education/skills improvement; savings/investment etc., and have longer to reduce the risk. This is not available to retirees, who must use live off their pension, and use savings, etc. as a buffer to maintain living standards in retirement. Public policy that e.g. increases taxation of retirees or reduces benefits will almost certainly tip many into poverty and reduce the living standards of others.


----------



## Purple

PMU said:


> This is an important point. Retirees are at risk, in a way others are not, that they lack the wherewithal to mitigate the risk of declining standards of living or even poverty. Simply because they do not or cannot work, or have other streams of income. The ESRI seem to be ignorant of this basic fact of life in their report.
> Younger persons can always reduce the risk of lower living standards/poverty by work; education/skills improvement; savings/investment etc., and have longer to reduce the risk. This is not available to retirees, who must use live off their pension, and use savings, etc. as a buffer to maintain living standards in retirement. Public policy that e.g. increases taxation of retirees or reduces benefits will almost certainly tip many into poverty and reduce the living standards of others.


I agree. My issue is that social and taxation policy presumes that all retirees are poor. That is certainly not the case. As this discussion has developed my views have changed. I'm now of the opinion that things like free travel and health supports should remain but the age tax credit and reduced PRSI should be removed. Retirees who are at risk of poverty should get as much or more than they get now but those on high incomes shouldn't get tax breaks.


----------



## Protocol

Note that there are various ways to measure poverty.

AROP is not the same as AROPE.

AROP means having a low income, below 60% of the median disposable income.

AROPE is a wider measure: it means having a low income, OR being deprived, OR living in a VLWI household.


----------



## Protocol

Glossary:At risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) - Statistics Explained
					






					ec.europa.eu
				




*At risk of poverty or social exclusion*, abbreviated as *AROPE*, corresponds to the sum of persons who are either at risk of poverty, or severely materially and socially deprived or living in a household with a very low work intensity. People are included only once even if they are in more than one of the situations mentioned above. The *AROPE rate* is the share of the total population which is at risk of poverty or social exclusion. It is the main indicator to monitor the EU 2030 target on poverty and social exclusion and was the headline indicator to monitor the EU 2020 Strategy poverty target.


----------



## Protocol

Here is the most recent SILC:






						Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) 2021 - CSO - Central Statistics Office
					






					www.cso.ie


----------



## Protocol

Here is table 3.1 from the SILC:



Table 3.1 At risk of poverty, deprivation1 and consistent poverty rates by demographic characteristics and year%At risk of poverty
rateDeprivation
rate1Consistent poverty
rate202020212020202120202021State13.211.614.313.84.74.0SexMale13.111.313.612.94.53.6Female13.412.015.114.84.84.3Age group0-1716.413.618.917.07.25.218-3412.98.714.215.23.93.435-4911.210.014.412.84.73.350-6414.614.413.013.94.85.0*65+*9.811.98.18.41.02.5Principal Economic Status (aged 16 years and over)Employed6.54.49.28.61.60.9Unemployed33.223.233.331.616.410.2Retired9.811.87.07.61.12.3Unable to work due to long-standing health problems33.439.137.039.616.219.2Student, pupil20.317.416.113.06.25.7Fulfilling domestic tasks20.719.516.515.65.85.1Highest education level attained (aged 16 years and over)Primary or below18.024.822.020.36.08.6Lower secondary18.619.420.020.76.96.3Higher secondary15.212.414.612.85.23.9Post leaving cert15.210.316.615.05.13.9Third level non degree10.05.810.09.22.60.8Third level degree or above6.44.36.96.81.51.3Household composition1 adult aged 65+20.521.510.612.12.24.31 adult aged <6528.928.822.019.611.411.12 adults, at least 1 aged 65+4.58.96.86.90.42.32 adults, both aged <658.58.211.715.33.53.43 or more adults7.86.17.810.91.12.21 adult with children aged under 1831.022.844.144.919.313.12 adults with 1-3 children aged under 189.99.112.410.73.03.0Other households with children aged under 1819.513.719.215.18.13.8Number of persons at work in the household029.429.024.528.611.712.4115.612.619.313.85.73.524.93.06.87.51.30.53+4.03.67.76.00.00.0Tenure statusOwner-occupied7.78.27.46.11.61.5Rented or rent free25.719.829.932.011.79.8Urban/rural locationUrban areas13.310.515.815.85.44.7Rural areas13.013.911.210.23.12.6RegionNorthern and Western18.218.011.310.94.13.1Southern15.514.014.716.75.15.8Eastern and Midland10.18.015.113.04.53.11Deprivation Rate: The share of persons who experience two or more of the eleven deprivation items.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Protocol said:


> AROP means having a low income, below 60% of the median disposable income.


AROP is not really a poverty measure at all, it's an inequality measure.

Hypothetically


If everyone's income increased by a factor of ten tomorrow (and prices stayed the same) you would have exactly the same AROP measure as before.
If everyone's income was reduced to €100 a week (again no change in prices) you would have no one AROP any more.

Which scenario would you prefer?!


AROP is not useless but it has its limitations and those who make their living in the NGO space rarely acknowledge these limitations. It also doesn't change much from year to year. The earning potential of the adult population don't change very quickly, and neither does the tax or benefit system. Inequality is sticky in the short term although (from what we can tell) it has fallen materially since it was first measured in the early 1980s.


----------



## Protocol

AROP rates

General = 13.2% in 2020, falling to 11.6% in 2021
Over 65s are typically lower than the national average, during the last few years.

Deprivation rates
General = 14% approx
Over 65= 8% approx

Consistent poverty = AROP plus deprived
General = 4.5 - 5% approx
Over 65 = 1% - 2%


----------



## Protocol

Yes, I have heard Seamus Coffey describe AROP as more like a measure of income inequality.


----------



## Red Helmet

I don't think one need worry too much about retired  people having too much. The current inflation will reduce income and pension pot size( presumed lower stockmarket during inflation ) pretty substantially with little hope of recovery after retirement- for those with a private pension. I think( I may be wrong) public pensions will rise with pay awards of their grade.
 It is also difficult to benefit from downsizing, unless your house is very expensive( and so having a large enough margin over the new property) when you take into account the costs involved including furniture, decoration etc etc and not forgetting the hassle of moving if you are happy in your own home. 
At the very least lets see what happens with inflation over the next 2-3 yrs.


----------



## Purple

Red Helmet said:


> I don't think one need worry too much about retired people having too much.


I don't think anyone is worried about them having too much. 
The discussion is about social and economic policies that are built on the false assumption that all or most older people are poor.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Red Helmet said:


> The current inflation will reduce income and pension pot size


The main source of wealth for older people is housing which continues to increase at double-digit rates, still ahead of inflation.


----------



## Sophrosyne

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The main source of wealth for older people is housing which continues to increase at double-digit rates, still ahead of inflation.


See @Red Helmet's post:


Red Helmet said:


> It is also difficult to benefit from downsizing, unless your house is very expensive( and so having a large enough margin over the new property) when you take into account the costs involved including furniture, decoration etc etc and not forgetting the hassle of moving if you are happy in your own home.


In addition, where would older people move to? There is a housing shortage.

Would all of the housing stock in the hands of older people equal the need of younger people in terms of size, location, condition and affordability?


----------



## Red Helmet

Purple said:


> I don't think anyone is worried about them having too much.
> The discussion is about social and economic policies that are built on the false assumption that all or most older people are poor.


I think the norm of older people being poorer is about to be restored. Things have changed fundamentally with the return of inflation.
Reduction in income for those with ARFS( + inflation ( which over time will affect those on fixed  or reducing incomes more.). For those still working incomes eventually adjust as they did in the 70's. Those younger people with mortgages will benefit as debt is inflated away. Governments will like  this also whatever they say. Also any extra property tax will be coming from this reduced income. Energy costs in the home are higher for  older people more also( more at home and less active). 
Lets see how it looks in 2-3 years.
 It might be reasonable to reduce the amount of tax free inheritance and/or increase inheritance tax and /or not allow the use of inheritances/gifts  as deposits for houses.
The problem is a housing shortage essentially which should be sorted. The demand side might reduce soon -I believe some IT companies are laying off staff and you'd expect there will be a rush for the exit home by people from abroad


----------



## Purple

Red Helmet said:


> I think the norm of older people being poorer is about to be restored.


We're aa long long way from that but if it does happen then we should readjust our economic and social policies accordingly.


----------



## roker

Purple said:


> That's because as a cohort they are rich and under taxed. There was a time when they were poor and needed support and we constructed our taxation and welfare structure accordingly. Now they are rich and don't need those supports but the structures remain the same.
> A far more targeted approach is necessary. Things like free travel and medical cards should be means tested. They should pay the full rate of PRSI since it's very unlikely that they contributed enough to fund their State pension over their working life. Social transfers should be given to those who needs them, not to those who don't.
> 
> I'm sure there'll be lots of the usual "I/they worked hard all their life" entitled nonsense in response.


If you don't have enough contributions you get a reduced pension, the PRSI is paid to contribute to pension, why should a person pay PRSI a 2nd time on what they contributed


----------



## PMU

Purple said:


> I agree. My issue is that social and taxation policy presumes that all retirees are poor. That is certainly not the case.





Red Helmet said:


> I think the norm of older people being poorer is about to be restored.


Leaving aside that retirees are at a relativity high risk of poverty or social exclusion, it violates the basic principles of taxation of equality and neutrality if you look for certain socio-economic groups or other categories who you can then soak for taxes. Taxation should be neutral and should not be geared towards penalizing particular social groups, just because they are perceived as ‘less poor than they were in the past’, etc., or because you just don’t like them.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

PMU said:


> Leaving aside that retirees are at a relativity high risk of poverty or social exclusion


No they are not. 

Retired people are less at risk of poverty than students, the unemployed, the disabled, and those on caring duties (see yellow bar).

Material deprivation rates are even lower than those in employment (light green bar).





The state pension system does a pretty job of ensuring that most pensioners are not in poverty.


----------



## Look ahead

I'm Nobody said:


> I've worked 7 days a week as well.
> My first wage in 1973 was 8 pounds a week.
> Most People now have stuff,  too much of it, that they don't need we had nothing in the 60's and 70's.
> Where I am living now there were people living in mud huts against a ditch in the 1960's in Ireland.



Ah will you stop it, i grew up in the 60s in a brand new bungalow, i knew no one living in a mud hut against a ditch, thats famine era stuff


----------



## Groucho

Look ahead said:


> Ah will you stop it, i grew up in the 60s in a brand new bungalow, i knew no one living in a mud hut against a ditch, thats famine era stuff



It's reminiscent of the famous Monty Python 4 Yorkshiremen sketch:      

_We slept at bottom of lake and ate cold gravel for supper._ _And, when he came home from t'pit, our father would kill us._


----------



## Purple

PMU said:


> Leaving aside that retirees are at a relativity high risk of poverty or social exclusion, it violates the basic principles of taxation of equality and neutrality if you look for certain socio-economic groups or other categories who you can then soak for taxes. Taxation should be neutral and should not be geared towards penalizing particular social groups, just because they are perceived as ‘less poor than they were in the past’, etc., or because you just don’t like them.


I agree. It should be neutral. It certainly shouldn’t be giving lower rates to well off people simply by virtue of their age.


----------



## Purple

roker said:


> If you don't have enough contributions you get a reduced pension, the PRSI is paid to contribute to pension,


Sorry, I probably should have been clearer. For many people the contributions they made, while all that was asked of them, were insufficient to fund their State pension. Basically PRSI rates are too low.


----------



## I'm Nobody

If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of  the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there.


----------



## Look ahead

I'm Nobody said:


> If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of  the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there.


One mud hut is not reminiscent of the living conditions in Kerry in the 1960s. My parents built a four bedroom bungalow in the early 60s with the modern bathroom and palour of the era, in fact all the houses in our rural area were built of block or stone. Didnt the government embark on a massive social housing program in the 50s where thousands of houses were built all over the country in towns and rural areas.


----------



## Sophrosyne

I'm Nobody said:


> If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there


Then as now people view things from their own situation and often don't see the poverty that surrounds them.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> Sorry, I probably should have been clearer. For many people the contributions they made, while all that was asked of them, were insufficient to fund their State pension. Basically PRSI rates are too low.


And what about the tax rates?


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> And what about the tax rates?


What about them?


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> What about them?


OK!


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> OK!


Sorry, I don't know what you asked in your previous post me or what that means.


----------



## Groucho

I'm Nobody said:


> If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of  the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there.



So, even in the 1960s when the photo was taken, presumably The Kerryman regarded such a salubrious residence as noteworthy.    
After all, if everyone in Kerry had been living in mud huts and eating roadkill and raw insects, then it wouldn't have been worth a picture.


----------



## I'm Nobody

Obviously not, but there was great poverty in this country in the 1960's,
even in Dublin in different parts, 3 tenements collapse in 1963 killing 4 people.
Not everyone lived in a bungalow with a bathroom and a parlour.
Luxury sure Luxury. Try telling that to the young people today to quote Monty Python.


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> After all, if everyone in Kerry had been living in mud huts and eating roadkill and raw insects, then it wouldn't have been worth a picture.


A county full of John the Baptist's.


----------



## I'm Nobody

Roadkill!.
Donkey and cart around here if you were lucky.


----------



## jpd

Donkey? we had to pull our own cart


----------



## Groucho

jpd said:


> Donkey? we had to pull our own cart


Your own cart?     Lucky buggers!

All that we had was the occasional loan of a three-wheeled, World War 1 vintage pram.


----------



## Look ahead

Oh there was great poverty and im not denying it but there were very very few people in the 1960s living in a mudhut up against a ditch, i never knew of any way.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Census 1966 had 15k of 687k households living in dwellings of no more than one room. That's 2% - not small!

There were over a thousand one-roomed dwellings with four or more residents. 

Some of these people are still alive today.


----------



## Firefly

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Census 1966 had 15k of 687k households living in dwellings of no more than one room. That's 2% - not small!


In fairness, they were probably all in Kerry


----------



## T McGibney

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Census 1966 had 15k of 687k households living in dwellings of no more than one room. That's 2% - not small!
> 
> There were over a thousand one-roomed dwellings with four or more residents.
> 
> Some of these people are still alive today.


Very much so, we had neighbours as late as the early 80s without running water toilets for example, others (mostly old bachelors) living in mud wall cottages that basically all ended up literally falling down. My father born in the late 20s remembered seeing neighbours trapping crows to eat.


----------



## Groucho

Look ahead said:


> Oh there was great poverty and im not denying it but there were very very few people in the 1960s living in a mudhut up against a ditch, i never knew of any way.



At least they had drinking water close at hand.   So no need to trudge 2 miles in their bare feet through the snow and ice to the nearest well!

Donning my architect's flat cap for a moment,  may I venture to enquire how exactly does one balance a mud hut against a ditch?     I assume that the basement must be liable to occasional flooding.


----------



## T McGibney

Groucho said:


> Donning my architect's flat cap for a moment,  may I venture to enquire how exactly does one balance a mud hut against a ditch?     I assume that the basement must be liable to occasional flooding.


In at least some parts of Ireland the word "ditch" connotes a hedge rather than a drain. Hence the phrase "hurler on the ditch" and suchlike.


----------



## I'm Nobody

T McGibney is correct, in this part of the world a ditch can be a hedge.


----------



## noproblem

Some tinkers used to camp every year over winter not far from where we lived, big families with a lot of horses feeding on the roads with feet tethered, some men were tinsmiths, women begged for milk and flour and they literally lived by the ditch/hedge in atrocious conditions. I'm coming up to 70 and every day now I walk past where they used to camp up until I was around 15'ish years old. Little do the people living in beautiful big houses on these sites know what was there just over 50 years ago. People also forget how hard things were for settled people up to around the 80's when things began to change a bit, especially in the countryside. One thing there never was much of and that was, snacks and eating between meals, central heating, hot water on tap, nor was there money, one house might have a telephone that others used, some had tv's, lots hadn't, few had cars but the majority had bikes and school transport only came in around the early 70's. A few went on to 3rd level, lots emigrated the rest got whatever jobs they could get with minimal pay. Obesity was never a problem.  Handouts were almost non-existant from the goverment. Snowflakes really were snowflakes at that time. We talk of poverty today? Oh dear, poverty my arxx.


----------



## Look ahead

I'm Nobody said:


> T McGibney is correct, in this part of the world a ditch can be a hedge.


And a drain is a dyke


----------



## Look ahead

I'm Nobody said:


> T McGibney is correct, in this part of the world a ditch can be a hedge.


Not reallly a hedge though, usually it was  a mud and stone wall.


----------



## Purple

noproblem said:


> Some tinkers used to camp every year over winter not far from where we lived, big families with a lot of horses feeding on the roads with feet tethered, some men were tinsmiths, women begged for milk and flour and they literally lived by the ditch/hedge in atrocious conditions. I'm coming up to 70 and every day now I walk past where they used to camp up until I was around 15'ish years old. Little do the people living in beautiful big houses on these sites know what was there just over 50 years ago. People also forget how hard things were for settled people up to around the 80's when things began to change a bit, especially in the countryside. One thing there never was much of and that was, snacks and eating between meals, central heating, hot water on tap, nor was there money, one house might have a telephone that others used, some had tv's, lots hadn't, few had cars but the majority had bikes and school transport only came in around the early 70's. A few went on to 3rd level, lots emigrated the rest got whatever jobs they could get with minimal pay. Obesity was never a problem.  Handouts were almost non-existant from the goverment. Snowflakes really were snowflakes at that time. We talk of poverty today? Oh dear, poverty my arxx.


Things have really improved. I remember the 70's and 80's. I remember my grandparents didn't have a phone or central heating. I remember dinner being fried eggs, beans and home made chips. Wouldn't it have been awful if we'd given tax breaks to rich people then?


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> Things have really improved. I remember the 70's and 80's. I remember my grandparents didn't have a phone or central heating. I remember dinner being fried eggs, beans and home made chips. Wouldn't it have been awful if we'd given tax breaks to rich people then?



Aren't we very lucky that both FF and FG were in favour of Ireland joining the Common Market?   And isn't it stunning to realise that the Irish Labour party was totally opposed to the idea!


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> Aren't we very lucky that both FF and FG were in favour of Ireland joining the Common Market?   And isn't it stunning to realise that the Irish Labour party was totally opposed to the idea!


Yes, as were the Shinners.


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> Yes, as were the Shinners.



Back then, the Shinners' map of the world only went as far east as Dover.


----------



## Look ahead

Purple said:


> Things have really improved. I remember the 70's and 80's. I remember my grandparents didn't have a phone or central heating. I remember dinner being fried eggs, beans and home made chips. Wouldn't it have been awful if we'd given tax breaks to rich people then?


Fried eggs beans and home made chips would make delicious dinner this evening


----------

