# Is Regina Doherty hinting that contributory pensions might be lowered if the person doesn't need them?



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2019)

*All State pensions should not be equal, says Minister*

It is not “fair” that some older people receive State pensions that are more than they need while others on the same amount live in poverty, Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty has said.

This struck me as odd.

If someone has a non-contributory pension, it  is means tested, so they are not getting more than they need.

If it's a contributory pension, they are getting it based on their contributions, and not based on need.

_“So a long conversation will be needed,” she said, adding that the changes would not be achieved in one budget cycle. _

I suspect that this long conversation will result in the means testing of contributory pensions.

And if a FG minister is talking like this, what would a future left-wing minister do?

Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Jul 2019)

Either the comments are muddled, or the reporting, or both. It's very hard to make sense of the story.

Older people are generally not at risk of poverty because of the NC state pension.


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Jul 2019)

Sure why bother working if the state is just going to equalise all outcomes and at the end of the day whether you worked hard, paid your taxes, weren't a burden on the state the likes of Regina Doherty swoops in and takes what you put it to give to someone else.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Jul 2019)

Ireland is very unusual in having a very small difference between the means-tested minimum pension, and full contributory pension. There is less than a 5% difference between them.

There are big equity issues in my view.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (8 Jul 2019)

It’s a dangerous and worrying narrative. A number of years ago, the 4% PRSI contributions only applied to earnings up to a certain amount (€75k at the end). Then it became uncapped. These people that Ms Doherty (of Ballymun) refers to are probably funding their State Pension and 10 other people’s.


----------



## Feemar5 (8 Jul 2019)

Surely she cannot be serious - why pay to a private pension if you are going to loose the state benefit you have paid into all your working life.    There should be a bigger difference between contributory and non contributory and that should be clear for all to see.    It's a dangerous route for Fine Gael to take - pensioners vote and will punish them.


----------



## Blackrock1 (8 Jul 2019)

how about people who have paid taxes all their life get the max state pension and those that havent don't, makes more sense...


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jul 2019)

The cynic in me is reading this another way. This is not a play for helping those most in need, this a play to drive people into contributing to their own private pensions. Would I be correct in saying that Ireland has a low percentage (less than 50%) of people with private pensions? 
I suspect that the carrot will be that differential between the contributory pension plus private pension against the means tested non-contributory will be such that more people will start contributing to their own private pensions. 
So the State will appear to be acting fair and protecting those most in need, but in reality it will be compelling people to contribute more to their own pensions.


----------



## jpd (8 Jul 2019)

It's the first step of a long, long trek to deal with the unsustainable pension costs coming along in 10, 20 years
Classic stuff, soften everyone up, then go back but it will come back in another year or two


----------



## Protocol (8 Jul 2019)

The SPC can't be means-tested, can it?

Could we have a means-tested contributory pension?

And a means-tested non-con pension?

I don't think so.


----------



## Protocol (8 Jul 2019)

Over 66 poverty rates are low.


----------



## Sarenco (8 Jul 2019)

I think people are reading _way _too much into what the Minister actually said -
https://www.thejournal.ie/regina-doherty-pension-increase-4711741-Jul2019/ay

I don't see any proposal (or hint) in what the Minister said to abolish the State contributory pension, leaving only the means-tested, non-contributory pension.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2019)

Hi Sarenco
There is nothing in that report from thejournal but this is what the Irish Times said

_It is not “fair” that some older people receive State pensions that are more than they need while others on the same amount live in poverty, Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty has said. _

How could she reduce the pension for those that already have "more than they need"? 

Unless she is suggesting cutting pensions and increasing other social welfare. 

Brendan


----------



## Sarenco (8 Jul 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> _It is not “fair” that some older people receive State pensions that are more than they need while others on the same amount live in poverty, Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty has said. _


Hi Brendan

The above appears to me to be a (somewhat mischievous IMO) editorialised version of what the Minister actually said - otherwise the IT would have given us the full quote.

What the Minister actually said was that she wasn't necessarily in favour of across-the-board increases to social welfare payments (which FF have been pushing), as opposed to more targeted measures to alleviate identified needs.  I personally wouldn't have a problem with that approach.

There nothing in what the Minister actually said that would suggest that there is any proposal to abolish the State (Contributory) pension.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2019)

Hi Sarenco 

Where can I find the text of what she actually said? 

It seems odd that the Irish Times would misquote her so much!

Brendan


----------



## Sarenco (8 Jul 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Where can I find the text of what she actually said?


I don't think the text was a quote - otherwise the entire sentence would be in quotation marks.

I'm sure what the Minister actually said is accurately quoted in the article.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2019)

Here is what she actually said on Newstalk. 









						Pensioners want close to an extra tenner a week increase in this years budget | Newstalk
					

€9 extra every week – that’s how much Age Action and a number of other groups have said t...




					www.newstalk.com
				




It's hard to follow.  

On the one hand she does mention that people who work should expect to have a good pension in retirement. 

But most of it is about giving money to people who need it which is a very different criterion to paying out a pension based on insurance contributions paid in.

Brendan


----------



## PMU (8 Jul 2019)

Are there actually loads of pensioners in poverty? A quick check at the CSO https://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=sia12_sia20 shows for 2017 that 1.7% of over 65 are in consistent poverty, the lowest for any age group category, and that this figure has been decreasing in recent years and that 1.5% of those retired from employment are in consistent poverty, the second lowest figure. While unfortunate for the individuals concerned, there is nothing in these figures to suggest that this is a major problem.

Furthermore, the EC's 2018 Pension Adequacy report http://ceoma.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/PAR_Volume_II_draft_edited-COM.pdf states that “Social transfers in Ireland are effective in preventing older people falling into poverty in their retirement. State pensions are strongly redistributive due to the flat-rate payments and earnings-related contributions.” and that “Social transfers are particularly effective in Ireland in preventing poverty in retirement. “.   So according to the EC, the current system is reasonably effective in preventing poverty among retirees.  So is this really an issue?

The most objectional thing the Minister has come out with is that “It is not “fair” that some older people receive State pensions that are more than they need”.  It is just wrong and incompatible with a free society that the state should decide what are an individuals needs and should tailor pension payments accordingly.  By any standard it's not 'fair' to apply, in effect, a 100% marginal tax rate on part of a pension, because the state arbitrarily decides the pensioner “doesn't need it”.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Jul 2019)

@PMU 

Exactly.

The NC pension rate is calibrated very carefully so that the vast majority of pensioners do not fall into the statistical category of being at risk of poverty.


----------



## Sarenco (8 Jul 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Here is what she actually said on Newstalk.
> 
> https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/h...close-extra-tenner-week-increase-years-budget


Thanks Brendan.

I've listened to that interview in full and I didn't hear any suggestion that the Minister wants to abolish the State (Contributory) pension.


PMU said:


> The most objectional thing the Minister has come out with is that “It is not “fair” that some older people receive State pensions that are more than they need”.


Except the Minister didn't actually say that - you added your own quotation marks.


----------



## PMU (8 Jul 2019)

Sarenco said:


> Except the Minister didn't actually say that - you added your own quotation marks.


 I simply quoted from Mr. Burgess's post # 1 "It is not “fair” that some older people receive State pensions that are more than they need while others on the same amount live in poverty, Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty  has said." 
 The quotation marks around 'fair' are in the original post.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2019)

Sarenco said:


> you added your own quotation marks.



I was quoting the Irish Times attributing that to her.

Brendan


----------



## noproblem (8 Jul 2019)

Going on what she seems to be saying she's going to take a massive cut in her pension. But, but, maybe she's not implicating the TD's/ministers in her silly diatribe?  In any case, she's wasting her time if she thinks she'll get the better of the grey brigade.


----------



## Sarenco (8 Jul 2019)

What diatribe?

Have you actually listened to the interview that Brendan posted?


----------



## noproblem (8 Jul 2019)

Indeed I have Sarenco, i'm also very aware of how the media work and how the little sprat is thrown out there by the minister, in order to see what sort of bite there is. One can interpret what the minister said in many different ways, your choice is yours and your opinion is very important , just like everyone else's.


----------



## Sarenco (8 Jul 2019)

Fair enough but what exactly did the Minister say that is giving you cause for concern?

She specifically said that the State contributory pension would remain the "cornerstone" of our pension system, with the intention that it would continue at roughly 34% of average earnings.

To be honest, I think this entire thread is built on an unfortunate journalistic flourish by the IT.  Silly season stuff.


----------



## PMU (10 Jul 2019)

Sarenco said:


> To be honest, I think this entire thread is built on an unfortunate journalistic flourish by the IT.  Silly season stuff.


No. It appears to be the start of a process to means-test the state pension. https://www.irishtimes.com/business...igher-state-pension-than-glenageary-1.3951706.


----------



## Sarenco (10 Jul 2019)

PMU said:


> It appears to be the start of a process to means-test the state pension


Really?  That's just a piece of journalistic speculation that concludes:
"In light of this, what Ms Doherty may have been alluding to is an end to the gravy train of universal State pension increases...."

The Minister never suggested abolishing the State (Contributory) Pension (which would just leave the means-tested non-contributory pension).

Incidentally, I would have no problem in principle with the OECD suggestion that there should be a less generous universal pension for all, with a mean-tested top up for those in need.


----------



## noproblem (10 Jul 2019)

And what is your standard of measurement for "those in need" Sarenco? I could have a house or an apartment worth a huge amount of money and barely any income and that's just for starters. Ms Doherty should have kept her gob shut on this one if as you say she didn't mean anything untoward. However, not for the first time she's stirring the pot, or attempting to do so.


----------



## Sarenco (10 Jul 2019)

noproblem said:


> And what is your standard of measurement for "those in need" Sarenco?


What does it matter?  I don't make the rules.

I simply suggested that I wouldn't have a problem, in principle, with the OECD proposal (which, incidentally, has not been adopted as Government policy).


noproblem said:


> However, not for the first time she's stirring the pot, or attempting to do so.


Ok, can you tell what exactly the Minister said in the Newstalk interview that you take issue with?


----------



## noproblem (10 Jul 2019)

Sarenco said:


> What does it matter?  I don't make the rules.
> 
> I simply suggested that I wouldn't have a problem, in principle, with the OECD proposal (which, incidentally, has not been adopted as Government policy).
> 
> Ok, can you tell what exactly the Minister said in the Newstalk interview that you take issue with?



I'm not in any way wanting this to be a personal feud between your good self and me Sarenco.   What the minister said or didn't say is seldom spoken of, but its interpreted in a certain way be that good, bad, or indifferent. If one is to go on what she said it all looks harmless and that the Goverment is looking into how to make it fairer. That's grand and shouldn't be in any way threatening to anyone really. It's just that some people get stirred by even mention of a dabble into the OAP, hence the attack before even any type of onslaught is begun. By the way I never said I took issue with what she said, but it may have come across as that. One's interpretation so to speak


----------



## Purple (11 Jul 2019)

Sarenco said:


> Incidentally, I would have no problem in principle with the OECD suggestion that there should be a less generous universal pension for all, with a mean-tested top up for those in need.


I agree. We are heading for disaster when it comes to State pensions. I’d like to see a move to more private pensions and away from the current Ponzi scheme we have masquerading as a State pensions policy.


----------

