# Increase in State pension age to 67 should be delayed by seven years, report to recommend



## ivannomonet (9 Sep 2021)

Reccomendations of pension commission.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (9 Sep 2021)

> The Pensions Commission report, which was submitted to Social Protection Minister Heather Humphreys in recent days, is understood to recommend that the State pension age begin to rise in quarterly increments to 67 between 2028 and 2031, before gradually increasing to 68 by 2039.


It's a pity that it will be delayed so long, but the policy of doing it in small bites makes a lot more sense than in big chunks. Much less likely to encounter resistance from people feeling hard done by due to their birthday falling a few days the wrong side of the new year.


----------



## Conan (9 Sep 2021)

Typical Irish comprise.  But undoubtedly SF will oppose based on their "money tree" economics.


----------



## jpd (9 Sep 2021)

Kick, kick, kick ....


----------



## Allpartied (9 Sep 2021)

Raising the pension age is just another money grab from working people.  Covid showed us that 70 years of age is considered vulnerable and liable to severe health problems. 
Many people in low wage groups will have even lower mortality rates and won't even reach 70 years of age.  The state pension is subsistence level anyway, but should be available to people at 65, or even earlier.  We should be able to fund a modest retirement for our citizens at an age when they can have some level of active retirement. 
We are in the midst of a pandemic which may well see a reduction in life expectancy and add another chronic illness to the spectrum.  Another policy mandated by right wing freakonomics.  Getting so boring.


----------



## Laughahalla (9 Sep 2021)

How to you boil an Irish Pensioner?  3 months at a time by the sounds of it.


----------



## Shirazman (9 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> Raising the pension age is just another money grab from working people.  Covid showed us that 70 years of age is considered vulnerable and liable to severe health problems.



You could claim with equal validity that lowering the pension age is just another moneygrab from working people, given that the Social Insurance Fund would go bust almost as soon as the pension age was lowered - meaning that working people would have to fund those pensions!


----------



## Allpartied (9 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> Raising the pension age is just another money grab from working people.  Covid showed us that 70 years of age is considered vulnerable and liable to severe health problems.
> Many people in low wage groups will have even lower mortality rates and won't even reach 70 years of age.  The state pension is subsistence level anyway, but should be available to people at 65, or even earlier.  We should be able to fund a modest retirement for our citizens at an age when they can have some level of active retirement.
> We are in the midst of a pandemic which may well see a reduction in life expectancy and add another chronic illness to the spectrum.  Another policy mandated by right wing freakonomics.  Getting so boring.



30% of Irish people die before they reach 69, so you can take all their contributions and add it to your imaginary purse.


----------



## Allpartied (9 Sep 2021)

Shirazman said:


> You could claim with equal validity that lowering the pension age is just another moneygrab from working people, given that the Social Insurance Fund would go bust almost as soon as the pension age was lowered - meaning that working people would have to fund those pensions!


30% of Irish people die before they reach the age of 69, so you could add their contributions to your imaginary purse.  They get nothing back.


----------



## Conan (9 Sep 2021)

When today’s retirees started the working lives, the average life expectancy for a 65 year old then was about 13 years. Today, the average life expectancy for a 65 year old retiree is c20 years (a 50%+ increase). So whilst some would like the retirement age to continue to be 65 (or earlier according to Allpartied), the same people also  want lower taxes and are unwilling to fund even longer State Pensions. Only in the SF world of Narnia economics can these contradictions be  squared.


----------



## fayf (9 Sep 2021)

On first reading, it sounds like its logical and socially fair, if implemented. The new, much more gradual phasing in,  is hard to argue with, and it deals with the current reality of people living much longer, which has to be managed and paid for.


----------



## Shirazman (9 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> 30% of Irish people die before they reach the age of 69, so you could add their contributions to your imaginary purse.  They get nothing back.



If married, then their surviving partner (and kids) can benefit from their contributions.   
Anyway, their contributions are included in the Social Insurance Fund that will go bust if SF's absurd State Pension at age 65 proposal is implemented.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (9 Sep 2021)

Shirazman said:


> in the Social Insurance Fund that will go bust


The social insurance fund (SIF) is just an accounting concept. There is no investment strategy, there are no benefits that won't get paid if it runs out of money. The SIF has been in deficit for most of its existence with the Exchequer acting as residual financer.

Overall state capacity to deal with costs of ageing (not just pensions but social care) is the issue here.


----------



## Allpartied (9 Sep 2021)

Conan said:


> When today’s retirees started the working lives, the average life expectancy for a 65 year old then was about 13 years. Today, the average life expectancy for a 65 year old retiree is c20 years (a 50%+ increase). So whilst some would like the retirement age to continue to be 65 (or earlier according to Allpartied), the same people also  want lower taxes and are unwilling to fund even longer State Pensions. Only in the SF world of Narnia economics can these contradictions be  squared.



Irish GDP has increased by over 500% in the last 20 years.  There is a lot of wealth being created in this economy.  More than enough to cover a pittance for people in retirement and to deal with the ageing crisis. 
Productivity and efficiency are improving every year, with automation continuing to streamline production. Wealth creation is not the issue. 
Distribution is the issue. 
Forcing 68 year olds to queue up at the bus stop in the middle of winter and work in arduous jobs is dystopian.  Like the old landlords, in the famine, who made the peasants build follies, because of some bizarre attachment to medieval morality.


----------



## michaelm (9 Sep 2021)

65 is a reasonable retirement age for a modest payment.  Methinks they should have left it alone or perhaps replaced all welfare with a universal payment.  Faffing around with it will probably only serve to elect SF . . which could prove far more expensive than a retirement age of 65.


----------



## fayf (9 Sep 2021)

Not really faffing, this has been topical for decades, and 10 years ago FG/Labour at least, made a decision, (which others failed to grapple with- kick the can) to deal with it, after a prolonged analysis, and generally speaking, what has been recommended today, is broadly aligned, to what they decided in 2011. 

The recent CSO age profiling reports,  indicated a significant increase in the older age group, in the last 5 years, over 65’s increased by 17.90 % which will further accelerate, over the coming decades. This was all predicted back in 2011 when the changes were made. 


https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0831/1243848-cso-population-figures/

SF will say anything to get votes, but never say how its going to be paid for, but the facts do not lie.


----------



## Dave Vanian (9 Sep 2021)

This is an interesting debate.  Following on from Conan's point, here's a handy table of average longevity in Ireland since 1950.  https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRL/ireland/life-expectancy

Even in the short space of time since I started working full-time (late 1980s) it's gone up by 8 years.  Those additional 8 years of a full State pension - roughly €13,000 per year - is the equivalent of an *additional *cost of around €100,000 per person to the State. 

So where's all that extra money to come from?  

Allpartied believes that it's not an issue...



Allpartied said:


> Irish GDP has increased by over 500% in the last 20 years. There is a lot of wealth being created in this economy. More than enough to cover a pittance for people in retirement and to deal with the ageing crisis.



I'm not an economist but I tend to view GDP a bit like turnover of a business.  A nice headline figure, but I'm more interested in the bottom line, after all the costs. 

So on one side of the debate, it's a verifiable fact that our increasing longevity, while welcome in many ways, is going to cost the State a huge amount of money per year.  Think €13,000 x every retired person x 8 years or whatever time period you're looking at.  

Does anyone have figures to show that our increased GDP, net of all the expenditure is sufficient to pay the huge additional cost of the State pension?  This is not a rhetorical question - I'd be genuinely interested to see.  I work on the pensions side of the debate so I'm far more familiar with the cost of the State Pension.  I'm less familiar with the income side - where the money is coming from and how much extra we have to go around, compared with a few decades ago.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (9 Sep 2021)

Dave Vanian said:


> I'm not an economist but I tend to view GDP a bit like turnover of a business. A nice headline figure, but I'm more interested in the bottom line, after all the costs.


GDP nets out the costs too!

To simplify greatly it's profits of businesses plus wages of households.


----------



## Allpartied (9 Sep 2021)

Dave Vanian said:


> This is an interesting debate.  Following on from Conan's point, here's a handy table of average longevity in Ireland since 1950.  https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRL/ireland/life-expectancy
> 
> Even in the short space of time since I started working full-time (late 1980s) it's gone up by 8 years.  Those additional 8 years of a full State pension - roughly €13,000 per year - is the equivalent of an *additional *cost of around €100,000 per person to the State.
> 
> ...



But your not just giving people money.  
The money is spent, virtually every penny of it, in the economy. It sustains jobs, services and businesses. 
In the same way as the Covid payments were essential to our economy and societal stability, the pension is a simple mechanism to promote well being.  If we stopped it, along with all other state benefits, we would " save" billions, but the economy would crash and we would be living in a nightmarish world.


----------



## Dave Vanian (9 Sep 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> GDP nets out the costs too!
> 
> To simplify greatly it's profits of businesses plus wages of households.



Thanks.  Don't want to drag this thread off-topic, but surely Gross Domestic Product isn't really a valid measure of figuring out how much money a country actually has to spend.  My comparison would be: Person A has an annual income of €100,000, no debts and no mortgage.  Person B has an annual income of €200,000 but has a huge mortgage, 9 kids, two big car loans, a spouse with expensive tastes etc.  If additional spending is required, Person A is going to be able to fund it far better.


----------



## Dave Vanian (9 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> But your not just giving people money.
> The money is spent, virtually every penny of it, in the economy. It sustains jobs, services and businesses.
> In the same way as the Covid payments were essential to our economy and societal stability, the pension is a simple mechanism to promote well being.  If we stopped it, along with all other state benefits, we would " save" billions, but the economy would crash and we would be living in a nightmarish world.



I agree fully that money in a person's hands will often be recycled back into the economy (unless it's saved) and will generate more revenue for the government both directly and indirectly through taxes, spending on local businesses etc. 

I'm not arguing that any State benefits should be cut or withdrawn. 

I'm asking - if our additional longevity is going to cost an extra €100,000 per person if looking at my example above, or more if looking further back, then where is this additional money going to come from?  If you give someone €100,000 it's not going to be 100% recycled back to the Exchequer unless they give it back.  They might save some.  They might spend some on products or services abroad that don't benefit the Irish economy.  While taking your point about the effect of recycling money, it's only going to be a percentage that will come back.  I've no idea what that percentage might be. 

If I could see figures that show that Ireland Inc and its net finances have improved faster than the rate of increase in our longevity, I'd be happy to argue to leave the State Pension age alone.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (9 Sep 2021)

Dave Vanian said:


> but surely Gross Domestic Product isn't really a valid measure of figuring out how much money a country actually has to spend.


It more or less is the best measure (technical issues for Ireland aside).

Ultimately societal living standards are about average productivity of people working, and what % of adults work.

PS: states, unlike humans, never have to pay off debt. They just roll it over.


----------



## Shirazman (9 Sep 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The social insurance fund (SIF) is just an accounting concept. There is no investment strategy, there are no benefits that won't get paid if it runs out of money. The SIF has been in deficit for most of its existence with the Exchequer acting as residual financer.



Yep - and when that "accounting concept" runs out of money, there's only one source of funds:- the Irish taxpayer.

And the earlier that it's paid, the longer it will have to be paid for and the more that Irish workers will have to pay in taxes to support their parents and grandparents who will have an ever-increasing life expectancy.     It's an horrific prospect.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Overall state capacity to deal with costs of ageing (not just pensions but social care) is the issue here.



Yep - and the cost of free medical treatment for the over 70s is also going to increase exponentially.     It's a nightmare scenario, made worse by the brainless populism of Sinn Fein (among others) who understand about as much about demographics as I do about Quantum Physics.


----------



## skrooge (9 Sep 2021)

The best indicator is surely the government's tax take. GDP (or arguably gni*) are broad measure of output but that's very different than income required to balance a budget.

65 Vs 68 are arbitrary ages. We're talking 3 years in the greater scheme of things. Both are as old as they want to be. There is a certain element of personal responsibility here. If I don't provide for myself the State of there to provide a basic level of income. But it's my choice to have an additional pension if I want more than the basics. I.e., early retirement.

Of course the grey vote scuppers that personal responsibility. Auto-enrolment for all…


----------



## kinnjohn (9 Sep 2021)

The General election was held around sat 8/2/ 2020 do any of the posters know The Issues about raising the age that caught out FF/FG and Labour surely at Least one poster would remember the Issue,


fayf said:


> Not really faffing, this has been topical for decades, and 10 years ago FG/Labour at least, made a decision, (which others failed to grapple with- kick the can) to deal with it, after a prolonged analysis, and generally speaking, what has been recommended today, is broadly aligned, to what they decided in 2011.
> 
> The recent CSO age profiling reports,  indicated a significant increase in the older age group, in the last 5 years, over 65’s increased by 17.90 % which will further accelerate, over the coming decades. This was all predicted back in 2011 when the changes were made.
> 
> ...


----------



## kinnjohn (9 Sep 2021)

ivannomonet said:


> Reccomendations of pension commission.


The problem with this report is it never addressed the issues raised in the last General election that led to FF/FG and Lab running a mile from raising the pension age
Sadly the only people who would agree with the above Recommendations when explained correctly to them is 
die-hard FF/FG/LAB supporters sadly we will have less of them as the years go by,


----------



## Conan (9 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> The General election was held around sat 8/2/ 2020 do any of the posters know The Issues about raising the age that caught out FF/FG and Labour surely at Least one poster would remember the Issue,


The issue was SF proposing the pension age remaining at age 65 along with all the other SF freebies.


----------



## kinnjohn (9 Sep 2021)

Conan said:


> The issue was SF proposing the pension age remaining at age 65 along with all the other SF freebies.


No that is not correct, While people continue to make incorrect statements about SF
 SF will continue to rise in the polls, the above statement and others like it are driving more and more people away from the established parties, 


Nothing to do with SF,
 I suspect you have nothing to do with pensions or know very little about them,


----------



## Allpartied (9 Sep 2021)

Conan said:


> The issue was SF proposing the pension age remaining at age 65 along with all the other SF freebies.


Raising the retirement age won't save much, if any money. 
Huge numbers of people won't be fit to work in many professions. 67 year old firemen? Or roofers? Or any construction workers.  Truck drivers? Nurses? Cops? The night shift factory workers, the security guards , the postmen.

How much effort is the 67 year old teacher going to make, with another 30 teenagers messing about in her classroom? 

 The unemployment rates for 65 year old will just go up.
It's such a massive political disaster, for such a tiny return. 
Of course, the people making the decisions might have nice, stimulating, non physical jobs, with pleasant working environments,  so that might explain it.

However, the award for the Thickest Brass Neck, must surely go to Mary Hanafin, Mary Harney, Brian Cowen and the fabulous government who first introduced the change in Dail Eireann.................then shuttled off with their massive pensions in their 50's.


----------



## kinnjohn (9 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> Raising the retirement age won't save much, if any money.
> Huge numbers of people won't be fit to work in many professions. 67 year old firemen? Or roofers? Or any construction workers.  Truck drivers? Nurses? Cops? The night shift factory workers, the security guards , the postmen.
> 
> How much effort is the 67 year old teacher going to make, with another 30 teenagers messing about in her classroom?
> ...


Who said The state could not afford to pay pension at 65, and shortly after retired on a very good state pension,
Supporters of raising the pension age in most cases are very well set up,
A few years ago It was posted on Askaboutmoney the state forgoes 8 billion a year in tax breaks it was also posted
some time ago most of this tax break gets eaten up in fees and charges,


----------



## joe sod (9 Sep 2021)

skrooge said:


> The best indicator is surely the government's tax take. GDP (or arguably gni*) are broad measure of output but that's very different than income required to balance a budget.


Also the difference between GDP and GNI* for Ireland are substantial, GNI* (our real productivity when you strip out multinational activities)  was actually 40% less than our quoted GDP figures in 2019. Using the figure for GDP is ridiculous for Ireland , we are 40% less productive than we think we are.


----------



## kinnjohn (9 Sep 2021)

But the tax take is not 40% less, The problem is it gets squandered on special interest Groups,

If it goes belly up The contributory pension will be far down the list when it comes to cuts,

The established parties and SF know most people who depend on the contributory pension will have figured out  they were not responsible for squandered the tax paid in over their life time,


----------



## skrooge (9 Sep 2021)

joe sod said:


> we are 40% less productive than we think we are.



Or we're 66.6% more of a tax haven than we should be.


----------



## Dave Vanian (10 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> it was also posted
> some time ago most of this tax break gets eaten up in fees and charges,



That was just before such claims, while hugely popular among those with a particular agenda, were proven by actual verifiable facts to be utter rubbish.  But those with the agenda still try to spread the rumour anyway.  Why let facts get in the way of a good story?


----------



## kinnjohn (10 Sep 2021)

Dave Vanian said:


> That was just before such claims, while hugely popular among those with a particular agenda, were proven by actual verifiable facts to be utter rubbish.  But those with the agenda still try to spread the rumour anyway.  Why let facts get in the way of a good story?


I don't have any agenda,
But it frightens me that people like yourself who work on the pension side of the Industry
Don't seem to know or remember The Issues around Raising the state pension age that caused FF/FG/Lab to run a mile when confronted about it,
Do You,


----------



## Conan (10 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> No that is not correct, While people continue to make incorrect statements about SF
> SF will continue to rise in the polls, the above statement and others like it are driving more and more people away from the established parties,
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong. I have worked in the Pensions/Investment world for many years. And you memory of SF majoring on opposing any change in the pension age in the last election is clearly failing you. ML and Pearse made a big issue of this , promising to retain the pension age at 65.


----------



## kinnjohn (10 Sep 2021)

Conan said:


> Wrong. I have worked in the Pensions/Investment world for many years. And you memory of SF majoring on opposing any change in the pension age in the last election is clearly failing you. ML and Pearse made a big issue of this , promising to retain the pension age at 65.


Once again
For someone who works in the pension Industry do you know why FF/FG and Labour ran a mile from their decision to raise the pension age,
The Irish Pension Industry Frightens me if you and others can't answer  this simple question off the top of your head,
Can you ,
For what it is worth I paid AVC and stayed with a company with a good pension since the 1980s, now retired,


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (10 Sep 2021)

The big problem here is that many people still take the 20th century view that retirement is an event, and not a process. In the real world fewer and fewer people are having a big retirement moment. They may retire from a full-time job and do a bit of part time or contractual work. My own parents are gone from their day jobs but still doing bits and pieces of paid work well past 65 and will do so for a while yet. In the US you actually see employment rates of over 20% for men aged between 70 and 74. The US is not very culturally different from Ireland and I believe Ireland will get there some day.

Yes, the age at which state pensions are paid will have to rise. The current approach is too expensive. *But a unique focus on retirement age is not helpful. *Public policy has to help people to transition from employment to retirement. Policy has to be aware the lower-skilled workers (particularly with a manual background) just don't have the opportunity to keep going like us knowledge workers do. Pensions should be flexible too. It might suit some people to draw down early, and for some to draw down late. Some people could do with partial pensions for a certain age. With the right actuarial adjustments this can all be cost-neutral to the state.

I have no idea what this Commission on Pensions is going to recommend. But I hope they come up with something that isn't just part of a tug-of-war between 65 and 68. They also need to come up with *a sustainable method for deciding on pension increases*, be it some linkage to inflation or wages or a combination. The "fiver-a-budget" approach to welfare increases of recent years is a really bad way to give out increases which are impossible politically to ever take back. Best approach would be to devolve it to some quango which makes a recommendation every year which the government is expected (but not obliged) to accept on Budget day.


----------



## Dave Vanian (10 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> I don't have any agenda,
> But it frightens me that people like yourself who work on the pension side of the Industry
> Don't seem to know or remember The Issues around Raising the state pension age that caused FF/FG/Lab to run a mile when confronted about it,
> Do You,



You don't have any agenda yet you quote a report that was discredited.  

I remember the issues well.  I clearly remember Sinn Fein running with the populist promise to keep the State retirement age at 65, but offering no clue as to where the huge expense of this would come from.


----------



## Realcork (10 Sep 2021)

Surely before the  extension of pension age the government should enforce mandatory pensions, this would give a hybrid pension scheme with a minimum private pension pot being used to to fund pension between 65 and 68


----------



## joe sod (10 Sep 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Policy has to be aware the lower-skilled workers (particularly with a manual background) just don't have the opportunity to keep going like us knowledge workers do.


This is a very important point that physically demanding jobs are different and not possible to continue after 65, However if government were to differentiate between genuinely physical jobs then there would be a chorus of callers ringing Joe Duffy to say that their jobs were also physically demanding, and that it was sexist as generally men do those jobs, The government always takes the safest route and universality in the welfare system is the path they always take.


----------



## Protocol (10 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> Raising the retirement age won't save much, if any money.



The Fiscal Council state that the 1 year change costs 575m per year.









						Government ‘will be out €575m’ if it doesn’t alter pension age, says State budget watchdog
					

Higher taxes or spending cuts loom if the Government delays increasing the State pension age to 67.




					www.independent.ie
				










						Long-term Sustainability Report – Irish Fiscal Advisory Council
					






					www.fiscalcouncil.ie


----------



## Allpartied (10 Sep 2021)

Protocol said:


> The Fiscal Council state that the 1 year change costs 575m per year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But that's just a blank figure, with no regard for unintended consequences. 

Loads of people will go for sickness benefit.  All those in physically demanding jobs will get signed off by their GP.  Or they could just sign on for jobseekers.  Employment activation mechanisms are not, currently, used against people over 62. 
In addition, you might have a lot of unproductive people clogging up the workforce, who will have to be covered.  

By all means give people the option of deferring their state pension ( with an actuarial increase)  and continuing in the workforce.  But the political price of forcing people to work beyond 65, when the politicians are scuttling off at 60, is just too big.  It's an open goal for the opposition.  

It's just a poor exercise in budgeting, based on the myth that the state is the same as a business.


----------



## Protocol (10 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> By all means give people the option of deferring their state pension ( with an actuarial increase)  and continuing in the workforce.  But the political price of forcing people to work beyond 65, when the politicians are scuttling off at 60, is just too big.  It's an open goal for the opposition.



TDs receive their State Pension at the exact same time as everybody else.


All TDs elected after April 1st, 2004, cannot receive a PS pension or pension lump sum until they reach 65 years of age unless they served in a public service body prior to April 1st, 2004.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (10 Sep 2021)

Protocol said:


> TDs receive their State Pension at the exact same time as everybody else.


Also note TDs pay class K PRSI which doesn't even entitle them to jobseekers benefit when they lose their seat!


----------



## time to plan (10 Sep 2021)

joe sod said:


> This is a very important point that physically demanding jobs are different and not possible to continue after 65, However if government were to differentiate between genuinely physical jobs then there would be a chorus of callers ringing Joe Duffy to say that their jobs were also physically demanding, and that it was sexist as generally men do those jobs, The government always takes the safest route and universality in the welfare system is the path they always take.


Depends what you mean by physically demanding. Most nursing and social care jobs are done by women.


----------



## Allpartied (10 Sep 2021)

Protocol said:


> TDs receive their State Pension at the exact same time as everybody else.
> 
> 
> All TDs elected after April 1st, 2004, cannot receive a PS pension or pension lump sum until they reach 65 years of age unless they served in a public service body prior to April 1st, 2004.



But the changes in pension arrangments are not restricted to those who joined the scheme post 2004.


All public sector workers pre 2004, can retire at 60 with the equivalent of the state pension paid immediately.  And then some. 

The changes are so short sighted and lacking in any vision or cohesiveness.

Just stick the pension age up three years.  Full stop.

What about manual workers, what about cognitive decline , what about mobility issues, what about the unproductive, what about employers who don't want unproductive, unenthusiastic workers left on the payroll?

Is there any plan to offer reduced hours , as a legal right?  Periods of extended leave, a tapering down from 40 hour weeks to zero in the last 5 years?

It's a blunt tool to save money and it won't save money.


NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Also note TDs pay class K PRSI which doesn't even entitle them to jobseekers benefit when they lose their seat!


They don't do too badly.









						Almost €600,000 for TDs who lost seats or retired
					

Over €28,000 for ex-FG TD Dara Murphy and in excess of €17,000 to ‘swing gate’ Maria Bailey




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Shirazman (10 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> It's a blunt tool to save money and it won't save money.
> 
> They don't do too badly.
> 
> ...



So we're discussing an estimated extra charge on the taxpayer of €575m per annum - and growing - and you throw up a link to some trivial report about a one-off charge of €0.6m for retiring politicians.    When someone doesn't appear to understand the difference between €575,000,000 and €600,000 they shouldn't really expect to be taken seriously.


----------



## Marco 1972 (10 Sep 2021)

Has anyone under 50 anything to look forward too, rampant house prices for pokey accommodation or even worse rental accommodation, forced labour till near 70 etc,   all that guff about a living longer, were'all living longer minus those 30% that dont reach 69,, with chronic conditions most likely,  argument should be why we can retire at 58 given all the technological advances coming.....


----------



## Allpartied (10 Sep 2021)

Shirazman said:


> So we're discussing an estimated extra charge on the taxpayer of €575m per annum - and growing - and you throw up a link to some trivial report about a one-off charge of €0.6m for retiring politicians.    When someone doesn't appear to understand the difference between €575,000,000 and €600,000 they shouldn't really expect to be taken seriously.


Its politics and it matters.  Optics are everything and if you don't get that, then you don't understand very much. 

People see fairness as important.  So, if the guy making the decision is getting a nice bumper pay off and a nice early pension, it matters.  
Of course it's a small amount, but so is Joe Bloggs pension for three years. 

Anyway, that was in response to a claim that TD's are just like the rest of us, or even worse off because they don't get jobseekers.  

But the whole fiasco is predicated on some mythical reduction in the working age group.  That they will be somehow squeezed like lemons to pay for the elderly, lapping it up on cruises.   It's nonsense.  If the economy is productive, it doesn't matter how many people are working.  In fact, a Universal Basic Income is the most likely policy change in future decades, because automation is driving people out of employment.  Politicians who grew up with the  inflationary 70's ( basically an external energy based shock)  are like flat earthers, terrified of falling off an imaginary cliff. 

There are lots of ways to balance up the cost, by redistributing the surplus wealth which is all around us.  

Corporation Tax is the most obvioius.   A wealth tax,  increased prsi for employers.   Or just borrow it at negative interest rates.   

You want to balance  up the generational wealth gap, no problem.   Put Inheritance Tax to 50%, reduce the allowance to 50k per person and put CGT on the principal private residence.


----------



## time to plan (10 Sep 2021)

Shirazman said:


> So we're discussing an estimated extra charge on the taxpayer of €575m per annum - and growing - and you throw up a link to some trivial report about a one-off charge of €0.6m for retiring politicians.    When someone doesn't appear to understand the difference between €575,000,000 and €600,000 they shouldn't really expect to be taken seriously.


In that case, the state can send me a cheque for €0.6m, as it apparently doesn't matter.


----------



## Peanuts20 (10 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> No that is not correct, While people continue to make incorrect statements about SF
> SF will continue to rise in the polls, the above statement and others like it are driving more and more people away from the established parties,
> 
> 
> ...



Please see below the official Sinn Fein policy on pensions


			Policies
		


as you can see, it states _We will stop the pension age increase to 67 and will return it to 65._


----------



## Peanuts20 (10 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> But the whole fiasco is predicated on some mythical reduction in the working age group.  That they will be somehow squeezed like lemons to pay for the elderly, lapping it up on cruises.   It's nonsense.  If the economy is productive, it doesn't matter how many people are working.  In fact, a Universal Basic Income is the most likely policy change in future decades, because automation is driving people out of employment.  Politicians who grew up with the  inflationary 70's ( basically an external energy based shock)  are like flat earthers, terrified of falling off an imaginary cliff.
> 
> There are lots of ways to balance up the cost, by redistributing the surplus wealth which is all around us.
> 
> ...


Ok, so lets supposed we increased Corporation Tax to 20% and increase employers PRSI to 15%. That should increase the tax take and make everything ok, shouldn't it?? Ah no I think is the answer to that as 

multinationals flood out of the country and taking all of their corporation tax with them. 
well paid staff lose their jobs and end up having to claim social welfare
we end up with a reduction in Corporation Tax payments, a reduction in PRSI payments and an increase in social welfare payments

But that's ok, as the new Inheritance Tax will sort all of that out. Of course, you'd have to exclude productive assets such as businesses, farms etc so that the only way those who got left an inheritance could pay for it was by selling that productive asset. You'd also want to exclude things like life insurance payouts (otherwise, what's the point of that?) and to try and find someway to protect the vulnerable dependents so that they don't become a draw on the state. 

And that's of course before you try and stop people investing overseas to protect their assets. Overall, it doesn't really inspire a lot of people to grow their wealth and try and improve their families lives in the future, does it?

And of course, CGT on the sale of the principle private residence is going to have zero impact on the ability of people to move up the ladder so to speak. 

But of course, none of that matters since our productive economy where is doesn't matter if anyone works or not and where we can borrow money at negative interest rates will just keep on rolling along. 

Maybe we should just all invest in Crypto since obviously that bubble is never going to burst, it it?

And yes, I am being a wee bit sarcastic...........


----------



## Conan (10 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> Once again
> For someone who works in the pension Industry do you know why FF/FG and Labour ran a mile from their decision to raise the pension age,
> The Irish Pension Industry Frightens me if you and others can't answer  this simple question off the top of your head,
> Can you ,
> For what it is worth I paid AVC and stayed with a company with a good pension since the 1980s, now retired,


I think your memory is failing you. It was FG/LAB who proposed moving the pension age to 66, 67 and 68. In the last election SF campaigned on keeping it at 65. The current Govt set up the Pensions Commission to review the State Pensions system.


----------



## Shirazman (10 Sep 2021)

time to plan said:


> In that case, the state can send me a cheque for €0.6m, as it apparently doesn't matter.



Looks as though you didn't really understand my observation that _when someone doesn't appear to understand the difference between €575,000,000 and €600,000 they shouldn't really expect to be taken seriously.       _


----------



## Allpartied (10 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> Ok, so lets supposed we increased Corporation Tax to 20% and increase employers PRSI to 15%. That should increase the tax take and make everything ok, shouldn't it?? Ah no I think is the answer to that as
> 
> multinationals flood out of the country and taking all of their corporation tax with them.
> well paid staff lose their jobs and end up having to claim social welfare
> ...


Go back 100 years and tell the citizens that they would be entitled to free education, free healthcare, trade unions, minimum wages, annual leave, sick leave, council housing, a five day week, pensions and unemployment benefit.  
The bosses would have been telling you it was impossible, that things could never get that good without the bubble bursting. 

A pension age that starts at 65, for many people is 45 years of work.  Every year they put aside a small amount of excess wealth to pay for it.  
And loads of people don't work, because there is nothing for them to do.  Loads of people are on payrolls, doing next to nothing. 
The economy can afford a short period of active retirement, on a subsistence level pension, without the whole thing collapsing in a heap.


----------



## time to plan (10 Sep 2021)

Shirazman said:


> Looks as though you didn't really understand my observation that _when someone doesn't appear to understand the difference between €575,000,000 and €600,000 they shouldn't really expect to be taken seriously.  _


They may appear to YOU not to understand the difference, but that suggests to me that you shouldn't be taken seriously.

You're highly unlikely to find, on a forum about money, someone who doesn't understand the difference between €575,000,000 and €600,000.


----------



## time to plan (10 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> Go back 100 years and tell the citizens that they would be entitled to free education, free healthcare, trade unions, minimum wages, annual leave, sick leave, council housing, a five day week, pensions and unemployment benefit.
> The bosses would have been telling you it was impossible, that things could never get that good without the bubble bursting.
> 
> A pension age that starts at 65, for many people is 45 years of work.  Every year they put aside a small amount of excess wealth to pay for it.
> ...


Communist! Next thing we know, you’ll be demanding the abolition of serfdom.


----------



## kinnjohn (10 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> Please see below the official Sinn Fein policy on pensions
> 
> 
> Policies
> ...


I don't want to know what SF policy is I never voted for them in the past and have no plans to vote for them in the future

now do you know why FF/FG and Labour ran a mile from increasing the pension age in the General election of 8/2/2020 it can't be that hard of a question to answer,


----------



## noproblem (10 Sep 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Also note TDs pay class K PRSI which doesn't even entitle them to jobseekers benefit when they lose their seat!


I  remember reading about Boxer Moran from Athlone (I think) and how difficult he found it after losing his seat. It was very sad to read his story. Personally have no affiliation with the man, but always thought he was hard working and a people's person. I wouldn't be a TD for all the money in China, a tough and thankless job.


----------



## joe sod (10 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> Corporation Tax is the most obvioius. A wealth tax, increased prsi for employers. Or just borrow it at negative interest rates.


negative interest rates are not the gift of the irish government but the ECB, they don't apply to Ireland anyway just to Germany , Netherlands and the Scandis. The tide is turning anyway on negative interest rates as the ECB started reining in its massive bond buying program lthis week as inflation is just around the corner.


----------



## time to plan (10 Sep 2021)

noproblem said:


> I  remember reading about Boxer Moran from Athlone (I think) and how difficult he found it after losing his seat. It was very sad to read his story. Personally have no affiliation with the man, but always thought he was hard working and a people's person. I wouldn't be a TD for all the money in China, a tough and thankless job.


It’s indoor work with no heavy lifting.


----------



## kinnjohn (10 Sep 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Also note TDs pay class K PRSI which doesn't even entitle them to jobseekers benefit when they lose their seat!


O I like that old chestnut been trotted out,
What about their big lump sum Parachute payment on losing their seat
For jobseekers benefit, your employer pays 10.75% and the employee pays 4% total of 14.75% from payroll to the Government and no guaranteed pension for the time worked, and if they lost their job through their own fault wait 9 weeks before payment, is received

A TD and employer pays a total of 4% of payroll to the government and gets a big fat lump sum parachute payment worth more than jobseekers benefit and start a new job the day after, and wait for it a guaranteed pension that to the best of my knowledge retirement date will not be changing like the people seeing 14.75% coming out of payroll,


----------



## kinnjohn (11 Sep 2021)

noproblem said:


> I  remember reading about Boxer Moran from Athlone (I think) and how difficult he found it after losing his seat. It was very sad to read his story. Personally have no affiliation with the man, but always thought he was hard working and a people's person. I wouldn't be a TD for all the money in China, a tough and thankless job.


I know Boxer Moran I have voted for him in every Election and will again if he runs for election,

 You should have Googled Boxer Moran taxi first
There is a podcast of him talking after Budget 2019
(The Floating Voter 5 car Boxer Moran on The Budget)
I saw him dropping someone off at a shop in Athlone not long after the February 2020 general election,

remember Boxer was still a minister up until the 27 of June when the present government was formed,
so he had over four months to sort himself out

Boxer still got his Ministers Parachute payments and could get behind a taxi wheel the following day and not lose it

FF/FG/Labour made no provision(or protection) for people who lost their jobs on reaching 65 under the FF/FG/Lab increase in the pension age,

And the Deluded Credit/Blame SF for it not going through,

Right now FF/FG are caught with their pants down creating a makeup job for a 67-year-old collogue
while the left pensioners who had to retire at 65 to swing in the wind until the new contributory pension age kicks in,


----------



## Shirazman (11 Sep 2021)

*Workers face a series of PRSI hikes in the coming years to help fund a Government delay in increasing the State pension age, under new proposals.*

Self-employed people will bear the brunt initially as they would see their contributions soar from 4pc to 11pc in the coming years.
The move would impact up to 331,000 people who are self-employed in the state.

Other employees will also take some of the pain from rising PRSI rates, although these would not kick in until the 2030s.
A confidential draft of the Pensions Commission’s report, seen by the _Irish Independent_, shows future generations of workers and employers will be hit by increases if its recommendations to fund the state pension system are adopted.

However, the reform package also comes with PRSI hikes and a state contribution to prop up the system.   The self-employed would see the PSRI hikes first. Their rate would rise from 4pc to 10pc initially by 2030.  It would move to a higher rate – that now stands at 11pc – before jumping another 2.4pc by 2040 and 0.1pc by 2050.

https://www.independent.ie/business...an-to-delay-raising-pension-age-40839408.html


----------



## galway_blow_in (11 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> Raising the pension age is just another money grab from working people.  Covid showed us that 70 years of age is considered vulnerable and liable to severe health problems.
> Many people in low wage groups will have even lower mortality rates and won't even reach 70 years of age.  The state pension is subsistence level anyway, but should be available to people at 65, or even earlier.  We should be able to fund a modest retirement for our citizens at an age when they can have some level of active retirement.
> We are in the midst of a pandemic which may well see a reduction in life expectancy and add another chronic illness to the spectrum.  Another policy mandated by right wing freakonomics.  Getting so boring.


It's more than ample ,my mother lives on the state pension and saves more than fifty quid per week on it , its far higher than the UK rate 

When you add in the extra benefits along with the 250 per week  ,it's very generous


----------



## kinnjohn (11 Sep 2021)

Shirazman said:


> *Workers face a series of PRSI hikes in the coming years to help fund a Government delay in increasing the State pension age, under new proposals.*
> 
> Self-employed people will bear the brunt initially as they would see their contributions soar from 4pc to 11pc in the coming years.
> The move would impact up to 331,000 people who are self-employed in the state.
> ...


The self-employed pay around 26.5% of payroll in Austria
I think it is around 18% of payroll in Germany,
It is time to became good Europeans,


----------



## Protocol (11 Sep 2021)

galway_blow_in said:


> It's more than ample ,my mother lives on the state pension and saves more than fifty quid per week on it , its far higher than the UK rate
> 
> When you add in the extra benefits along with the 250 per week  ,it's very generous



I perhaps would not use the adjective "generous", but the 248 per week is good, yes.

It is clear that many people save out of the pension. This is to expected, as many people have:

zero housing costs (rent/mortgage)
zero or very low transport costs
zero or very low healthcare costs

Several years ago, I had a chat with the civil servant in charge of all "non-con" pensions, that was the term he used.

He told me that one issue they had to deal with is many of the non-con pensions save each week out of their pension, and so build up savings that render them ineligible for the non-con pension!!!


----------



## joe sod (11 Sep 2021)

Protocol said:


> He told me that one issue they had to deal with is many of the non-con pensions save each week out of their pension, and so build up savings that render them ineligible for the non-con pension!!!


therefore that is proof that the "non contributory" pension is too much yet the government is still going to go after the hardest workers the self employed to fund the deficit. The end result is that there will be less self employed people and more people claiming non-con pensions in a decades time


----------



## fistophobia (11 Sep 2021)

If you only have unearned income, say its class S income...
would it be better to change to a different class, to avoid this shafting.
I reckon I have 32 full years stamps paid.


----------



## ashambles (11 Sep 2021)

I think lucky members of the class K PRSI club are effectively taxed for PRSI the close to the self employed - there is nil employer contribution. Possibly in the interests of fairness any changes for the self employed should apply to class K as well?


Weekly income bandPRSI SubclassHow much of weekly payEmployee %Employer %Up to €100No contribution payable. Record under Class MNilNilNilMore than €100 K1 All 4.00 Nil





__





						PRSI Class K Rates
					






					www.gov.ie
				




Class K1 = "Certain public office holders with an income in excess of €100 a week. The public office holders affected include the President, members of the Oireachtas and the judiciary, certain military judges, the Attorney General, the Comptroller and Auditor General and certain members of the European Parliament."

Personally I'd have no issue paying more for a eu style "pay related" state pension - as opposed to a pension that's completely out of my control. 

For all my pension plans I count the state pension as 0 since the amount and the date I get it are out of my hands.  People in europe do pay more - but unlike us have some hope of predicting what their "pay related" state pension will be.


----------



## Protocol (11 Sep 2021)

joe sod said:


> therefore that is proof that the "non contributory" pension is too much yet the government is still going to go after the hardest workers the self employed to fund the deficit. The end result is that there will be less self employed people and more people claiming non-con pensions in a decades time



Please note:

Social Insurance Benefits are financed by PRSI.

Social Assistance payments are means-tested and financed by general taxation.

So if we pay more PRSI, it goes to the SIF, and it is not used to finance non-con pensions.


However, as the State sometimes must use taxes to top-up the SIF, indirectly you are correct.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (12 Sep 2021)

Protocol said:


> However, as the State sometimes must use taxes to top-up the SIF, indirectly you are correct.


And when the SIF was in surplus it was returned to the Exchequer  

People should really stop thinking about the SIF as being a real thing. The issue is much bigger than PRSI take and social insurance benefits.

Think about overall state capacity to pay for cost of ageing. All taxes and PRSI on the revenue side, all age-related costs on the expenditure side.


----------



## Shirazman (12 Sep 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The issue is much bigger than PRSI take and social insurance benefits.   Think about overall state capacity to pay for cost of ageing. All taxes and PRSI on the revenue side, all age-related costs on the expenditure side.



Yep.    As a side issue, I was quite surprised when I received an additional PAYE "Age Tax Credit" of €245 in the year that I turned 65.   Didn't want it, didn't need it, didn't apply for it, but it was a pleasant windfall all the same.         But why should I get it?


----------



## Shirazman (12 Sep 2021)

fistophobia said:


> If you only have unearned income, say its class S income...
> would it be better to change to a different class, to avoid this shafting.
> I reckon I have 32 full years stamps paid.



If your only income is unearned income, then you can't simply change your PRSI class!


----------



## fistophobia (12 Sep 2021)

Varadkar to oppose ‘massive’ rise in PRSI for self-employed
					

Fine Gael leader to line out against proposal designed to offset delay in pension changes




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## kinnjohn (12 Sep 2021)

fistophobia said:


> Varadkar to oppose ‘massive’ rise in PRSI for self-employed
> 
> 
> Fine Gael leader to line out against proposal designed to offset delay in pension changes
> ...


I know lots of people on here don't get it, but someday in the not so distant future the penny will drop,

 FF/FG/and labor by not bringing Ireland social security system in line with what is normal throughout the EU
will long term damage Ireland future more than the most left-wing Government we could possibly ever elect,

It is sad to see the long term damage the main political parties are doing by not addressing the Prsi/pension Issue,

Lots of well off people who support FF/FG/Lab don't realize the burden will fall on them in the future,

FF/FG/Lab/greens have already raided private pension pots to shore up bad Government Decisions in the Past,

Don't forget FF/FGLab/Greens had no problem cashing out/raiding your pension pot at a low point in the market  people close to retirement pension never recovering and then for good measure the same people got hit by an increase in the contributory pension age,
FF/FG/Lab are in for a shock if they think the people who supported them down through the years haven't noticed the unfairness in the PRSI System and will reply through the ballot box,

the tax systems they have in place lets them track most Irish peoples wealth and FF/FG/Lab/Greens and I suspect SF also will raid again the only difference is all Irish wealth will be included next time,


----------



## Sarenco (12 Sep 2021)

Shirazman said:


> Self-employed people will bear the brunt initially as they would see their contributions soar from 4pc to 11pc in the coming years.


As things stand, that would increase the marginal tax rate for the self-employed to 62%!!

Why would anybody bother working if they can only retain 38 cent in every earned euro above a certain level?  Cue massive tax evasion…


----------



## kinnjohn (12 Sep 2021)

Sarenco said:


> As things stand, that would increase the marginal tax rate for the self-employed to 62%!!
> 
> Why would anybody bother working if they can only retain 38 cent in every earned euro above a certain level?  Cue massive tax evasion…


You should investigate how it works in every other EU country that has a social security system  the difference between PAYE social security rates and the self-employed as a % of payroll is a mere  one of two % less,

My Daughter moved to Germany and then moved to Austria she is self-employed and pays 26.5% payroll into social security, which is one or two % lower than the  total amount an Employer/employee pay into the social security in Austria,

When she was self-employed in Germany the % of payroll going into the German social security system was around 17.5% again it was around 2% lower than the total taken from payroll if you were in direct employment,

 FG/Lab/Greens along with what is left of FF need to bring fairness into the PRSI system to have any chance of getting the changes in age increased which is driven mostly by the people who only see a total of 4%  or less going into the social security system from there own  pay packets,


----------



## Sarenco (12 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> When she was self-employed in Germany the % of payroll going into the German social security system was around 17.5% again it was around 2% lower than the total taken from payroll if you were in direct employment,


What is her marginal tax rate?

PRSI is just income tax under another name - it all goes into the same pot, the social “fund” is a fiction.


----------



## kinnjohn (12 Sep 2021)

Sarenco said:


> What is her marginal tax rate?
> 
> PRSI is just income tax under another name - it all goes into the same pot, the social “fund” is a fiction.


The first time I saw a rabbit hole posted on this forum if my memory is correct was by your good self I think,
 she would pay away lower tax in Ireland and  have a  lot more tax breaks for the self-employed,

The reason I know is she was able to use Irish self-employed status the first  year or two after moving to save big on tax,,
Irish self-employed tax breaks was the Icing on the cake marginal rates away lower in Ireland,


----------



## Sarenco (12 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> Irish self-employed tax breaks was the Icing on the cake marginal rates away lower in Ireland,


What are these “self-employed tax breaks”?

I note that you still haven’t told us your daughter’s marginal tax rate.


----------



## kinnjohn (12 Sep 2021)

Sarenco said:


> What are these “self-employed tax breaks”?
> 
> I note that you still haven’t told us your daughter’s marginal tax rate.


not going down that rabbit hole
I
you should be well able  to look up social security rates in Austria and tax rates for the self-employed, and directly employed workers,
There are several good forums like Askaboutmoney giving advice on going to work in Austria or Ireland from another EU country that posters can lookup no need for me to go down a rabbit hole,

Better for the people Quoting Irish self-employed paying 62% Marginal tax rates to look up the site on self-employed going to work in Ireland And  then look up self-employed going to work in Austrian/Germany  for themselves they will be far better informed and have a more rounded world view on social security and the tax systems within the EU

Just for the record, I paid well over 62% marginal under FF/FG/LAB  and it never stopped me from working Then FF had a bust-up and Desmond set up the PD party The strange thing was Desmond had no problem with me paying over 62% when he was part of FF party in government and opposition, but he had a problem with the marginal rate when he set up the PD,


----------



## Shirazman (12 Sep 2021)

From time to time, the 'ignore' option on this site seems a very useful feature!


----------



## kinnjohn (12 Sep 2021)

Shirazman said:


> Yep.    As a side issue, I was quite surprised when I received an additional PAYE "Age Tax Credit" of €245 in the year that I turned 65.   Didn't want it, didn't need it, didn't apply for it, but it was a pleasant windfall all the same.         But why should I get it





Shirazman said:


> From time to time, the 'ignore' option on this site seems a very useful feature!


Very useful I agree
 Ireland Would be a wonderful place to live if Ignoring or defending the unfairness in the social insurance system
Wasn't  going to cost  the very people Ignoring and defending the unfairness long term, and causing massive damage longterm,
The contributory pension was supposed to be one-third of the average industrial wage employees/employers
stopped paying PRSI once their earnings went above the average industrial wage,

 this was removed some years ago to help plug the gap  and make up for the shortfall for people who pay 4% or less for 10 years on 5000 euro and get the same pension as someone on 100K who sees 14.75% of their payroll goes into the Prsi fund every year for possibly 50 years,

As I said the biggest losers long term will be high-income self-employed and high Income paid employees the kind of people who vote for the present set up, I cannot see any Government let it be left-wing or right-wing cancelling the now established policy of charging PRSI on all income by FF/FG/LAB and the Greens with no extra benefits, 

The penny has started to drop some posters who were inclined to defend the present unfair Prsi system are starting to do the sums and don't like the marginal tax rates now required for using the Ignore button for so long,


----------



## kinnjohn (12 Sep 2021)

Sarenco said:


> As things stand, that would increase the marginal tax rate for the self-employed to 62%!!
> 
> Why would anybody bother working if they can only retain 38 cent in every earned euro above a certain level?  Cue massive tax evasion…


the penny is beginning to drop slowly, the marginal tax take from payroll is close to 62% from paid employment,
It was away higher before the  TROIKA arrived,
Employees marginal rate around 50% + another 10.75 % employers PRSI for a grand total of over 60% Marginal tax  taken from payroll under PAYE,

I thank my good friend Sarenco for pointed out PRSI is just another Tax in Ireland, as I said all over the EU employee and the self-employed pay around the same amount of payroll tax, normally self-employed pay around one to two % less of payroll,  I expect Ireland will have to tax more because we ignored self-employed PRSI  for so long,

as for massive tax evasion expect it to be met by cutbacks in tax breaks and revenue audits,at arm's length from the main political parties,


----------



## kinnjohn (13 Sep 2021)

fistophobia said:


> Varadkar to oppose ‘massive’ rise in PRSI for self-employed
> 
> 
> Fine Gael leader to line out against proposal designed to offset delay in pension changes
> ...


Fistophobia
I hope you don't mind me pointing out to you that FG under Kenny and Varadker oppose the USC tax and promised if part of the next Government they would do away with the USC , expect the same again when it comes to self-employed PRSI, It worked before and will work again,
Word in the Grapevine is prsi increases are not going to be part of any budget but regular increases over a set timeframe,

Don't forget this commission was set up by Leo and Michael its terms of reference included looking at self-employed social insurance rates they know self-employed PRSI rates Has to be addressed before increasing the contributory pension age,

 the report has been leaked ahead of publishing for a reason, expect a people assembly to follow,

  FG under Leo don't mind shafting their supporters again once they find a way of retaining their vote which was not hard to achieve in the  past under Leo/Enda,

slowly slowly catchy a Monkey,


----------



## ashambles (13 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> you should be well able  to look up social security rates in Austria and tax rates for the self-employed, and directly employed workers,


In Austria you can get up 80% of your average lifetime income at 65.

That's for Austria social insurance costs of 10.25% per employee and 12.55% employer.
In Ireland our 4% employee 11% employer, we get  a max of around 12,000 euro regardless of your average lifetime income. 
So it's more expensive, but the payback is a multiple of what we'll get.  

Are our alternative governments promising  Austria pensions to lowly taxpayers? I think I missed that? Where do we buy the uniform and sign up - I look forward to increasing my PRSI to 10.25 - because  then I can cut my private pension from 20%.  The self employed would also be delighted to pay much more for this scheme.


----------



## Peanuts20 (13 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> Go back 100 years and tell the citizens that they would be entitled to free education, free healthcare, trade unions, minimum wages, annual leave, sick leave, council housing, a five day week, pensions and unemployment benefit.
> The bosses would have been telling you it was impossible, that things could never get that good without the bubble bursting.
> 
> A pension age that starts at 65, for many people is 45 years of work.  Every year they put aside a small amount of excess wealth to pay for it.
> ...



If loads of people don't work because there is nothing for them to do, then why has there been so much immigration into Ireland in the last 20 years?. As for "loads of people on payrolls doing next to nothing" those employers won't survive in the long term.


----------



## Allpartied (13 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> If loads of people don't work because there is nothing for them to do, then why has there been so much immigration into Ireland in the last 20 years?. As for "loads of people on payrolls doing next to nothing" those employers won't survive in the long term.



It's an interesting development, the mass immigration.   The vast majority of those people do work in productive jobs.   They work in restaurants, or supermarkets, or factories.   These places still follow the capitalist paradigm.  No boss is going to employ someone in a restaurant to sit around, for most of the day,  making cat memes on the internet.   The low paid are worked very hard and, in my experience, still ruthlessly exploited with regard to breaks, holiday pay, overtime etc.  The minimum wage is regarded by many employers as a maximum, over which they cannot tread. 
But there are large sections of society, in well paid jobs, both public and private sector who are doing next to nothing.  Or, at least, they can do what they really need to do in  a fraction of the time for which they are employed. 
Automation, computerization have improved efficiency enormously in the last 40 years, but we seem to be " working " even longer hours.  There is no imagination in employers or government policy makers.  
One good example I know is the Royal Mail in the UK.  Back in the good old 70's, when unions had a bit of pull and got proper worker friendly deals for their members, a deal was negotiated known as " Finish and Go".  The postmen would collate the mail every morning, deliver it and then return to the depot to return any undeliverables.  This was calculated to take 8 hours, which was the working day.  So the deal allowed postmen to complete their tasks and then go.  Sometimes they'd finish a bit early, sometimes a little later. Everyone happy. 
Then automation started to make the first part of the job much more efficient.  The mail was already collated, so the posties could, after a quick check, hop on their bikes, at 6.00am, with the mail ordered and ready.  They then delivered the mail, as quickly, as they could, often finishing by 9 or 10.00am.   The mail was delivered quickly, efficiently and the worker had a bit of free time for gardening, heading to the cinema,  or child care, or whatever.  
Then the private sector gurus came in and, appalled, demanded that the posties work their contracted hours.  The policy was changed from " Finish and Go"    to " Finish and go do something else".   Of course, this just resulted in the postal workers slowing down, so that they still completed their contractual obligations, but over the 8 hour day.  Result was a drop in the quality of service to customers and a drop in the morale of the staff. 

There are so many jobs just filling up the week, when they could be done in half the time, if people were incentivized.  Instead, like the postal workers, people know that if they completed their tasks quickly and efficiently by Wednesday lunchtime, the employer would pile another load of, largely, pointless tasks onto them. 
We were all promised more free time, more leisure, less work as the automated world developed and we could easily have it, but old habits die hard.  The morality of " hard work" must still be the price of any reward.  Even though, those who work hardest, the shop workers, the factory workers, the restuarant staff, are paid the least. 

The raising of the pension age is just another example of this nonsense.  Forcing people in their late 60's to trundle off to work , instead of allowing them a few years of well deserved retirement.  I mean 70 is regarded as vulnerable, prone to serious complications from a simple virus.  There are a host of other chronic illnesses, not to mention tiredeness, fatigue and reduced mobility, which will quickly effect all of us when we go past 65 ( or even earlier).  Many of us will be dead before we get to 68.   Are we really so devoid of imagination, that this is the best on offer?


----------



## Shirazman (13 Sep 2021)

I share your deeply held view that it's wrong of employers to expect their employees to work for all of the hours that they are paid for.

Indeed so impressed was I by your passionate argument that I have just ordered a supply of hammocks and comfy chairs for my entire workforce.


----------



## Allpartied (13 Sep 2021)

Shirazman said:


> I share your deeply held view that it's wrong of employers to expect their employees to work for all of the hours that they are paid for.
> 
> Indeed so impressed was I by your passionate argument that I have just ordered a supply of hammocks and comfy chairs for my entire workforce.



A business owner sets up a business plan.  He works out that for 400 Euros of someone's  labour he can make  200 Euros of profit.  He calculates that labour will take 35 hours a week.  So, he recruits someone and sets them to work.   But the worker who does the job gets to know it better than the boss and after a while he can do it very efficiently.  So efficiently that he can complete all the tasks in 20 hours.   You still make your 200 Euros of profit, from his labour.  So, what's the problem?


----------



## time to plan (13 Sep 2021)

Shirazman said:


> I share your deeply held view that it's wrong of employers to expect their employees to work for all of the hours that they are paid for.
> 
> Indeed so impressed was I by your passionate argument that I have just ordered a supply of hammocks and comfy chairs for my entire workforce.


I expect the people who work for my business to get the work done. I really don't mind how many hours it takes, unless it's an unreasonable imposition on their own time. It does depend on the business type obviously. If it was a customer service type job, they would need to be covering set hours.

I do expect them to buy their own hammocks and comfy chairs.


----------



## noproblem (13 Sep 2021)

I forget the name of the genius who said that he likes to employ lazy people. He does so, because they always find an easier way to do the job.


----------



## kinnjohn (14 Sep 2021)

ashambles said:


> In Austria you can get up 80% of your average lifetime income at 65.
> 
> That's for Austria social insurance costs of 10.25% per employee and 12.55% employer.
> In Ireland our 4% employee 11% employer, we get  a max of around 12,000 euro regardless of your average lifetime income.
> ...


I agree
Thanks for acknowledging you looked it up,

I wonder what the people gorging on the 8 billion tax the Government forgoing every year in pension breaks would be doing now,  I  wonder would they still be the cheerleaders for increasing the pension age,

Just for the record, In  47 years working including putting in long hrs, I was laid off for around 5 months around 1985/1986 back then I got 75% of my wages in unemployment benefits Today you would get the same as someone who never worked a day in there life,

If you look at Sarenco post which I replied too he is under the impression  increasing self-employment payroll PRSI up to around the same as paid employment would lead to tax evasion among  the self-employed shows the Irish  PRSI system is anti-work for both paid employees and the self-employed,

(if you look at the people who liked his post) you will see most are upset at how some people game the welfare system in Ireland, but at the same time are not open to change the system to reward the people who go out to work all of their lives,
most of the people I worked with will need to work close to 50 years  to get the state pension at 65

 I have seen men just about able to walk down a factory floor to their workstation who worked a few past existing pension age only to retire around 67/68 and fall into ill health within a year or two and never really enjoy retirement I get the feeling it was the worst decision they ever made in there working life,

 I am disgusted at the state trying to force people of my generation because most will have  work close to fifty years on reaching 65, which in one sense will be good because most will realize they will not be able to stay working until 67 or 68 and will retire before 65 if they have any underline Issues and cash in there PRSI chips which will cost the state more in the long run,

I know by raising the pension age to 67 or 68 more able-body men and women will claiming disability before reaching 65 if they have underline health Issues, I see it happening already the trigger was raising the pension age and the state advising  people to use up all outstanding PRSI  entitlements to make up for the  increase in pension age

  people coming up to retirement should not feel ashamed of cashing in their PRSI chips After all it was the same people who increased the pension age who were encouraged  them to do so

What a lot of posters on here don't realize if you look at the marginal payroll tax taken as described by Sarenco people now reaching 65 on average wages seen massive tax take from payroll most of their lives,
PS
I get the feeling some on here think I am anti-Self-employed  absolutely not true my whole working life depended on the services provided by the self-employed I am very pro-work but the PRSI system in Ireland is anti-work,

FF/FG/Lab and now the Greens social security policies are recklessly putting this Countries future in danger,
rasing the  pension age is not a saving
raising the none contributory pension age in most cases is just transferring people from one type of social insurance
payments a year or two later with no cost-benefit,

raising the contributory pension age is awakening and highlighting how unfair the present PRSI system is on people
who started working at a young age seeing around one-sixth of their payroll taken in PRSI for over forty years being lectured to by people who will never put in the same amount of yearly contributions into the system as they have, will retire earlier than planned and take back as much of the overpayment in PRSI as the can,


----------



## Peanuts20 (14 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> A business owner sets up a business plan.  He works out that for 400 Euros of someone's  labour he can make  200 Euros of profit.  He calculates that labour will take 35 hours a week.  So, he recruits someone and sets them to work.   But the worker who does the job gets to know it better than the boss and after a while he can do it very efficiently.  So efficiently that he can complete all the tasks in 20 hours.   You still make your 200 Euros of profit, from his labour.  So, what's the problem?



So you now have 15 hours of labour free that you can sell to make more money and if you are clever enough in your business, you incentivise your staff as part of this so it is win win.

And if you don't, your staff only work half the time and should have no issues working til they are 70 since they are dossing off half the time anyway. 

And eventually, you will go out of business as more effective and efficient competitors come in and undercut your price since they realise they can do the task for the price of 20 hours. And your staff member loses their job as a result.


----------



## kinnjohn (14 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> So you now have 15 hours of labour free that you can sell to make more money and if you are clever enough in your business, you incentivise your staff as part of this so it is win win.
> 
> And if you don't, your staff only work half the time and should have no issues working til they are 70 since they are dossing off half the time anyway.
> 
> And eventually, you will go out of business as more effective and efficient competitors come in and undercut your price since they realise they can do the task for the price of 20 hours. And your staff member loses their job as a result.


The banksters got plenty of incentives and lots of early retirement for staff, incentives don't always work you know, no point in being a buisy fool,


----------



## Peanuts20 (14 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> The banksters got plenty of incentives and lots of early retirement for staff, incentives don't always work you know, no point in being a buisy fool,



If I'm getting incentivised, why am I a fool. ??

Better a busy and paid fool then an unemployed fool. There is a reason most large scale low skilled manufacturing no longer exists in Ireland and it is because it can be done in a lower cost country and at  much cheaper cost.


----------



## Allpartied (14 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> So you now have 15 hours of labour free that you can sell to make more money and if you are clever enough in your business, you incentivise your staff as part of this so it is win win.
> 
> And if you don't, your staff only work half the time and should have no issues working til they are 70 since they are dossing off half the time anyway.
> 
> And eventually, you will go out of business as more effective and efficient competitors come in and undercut your price since they realise they can do the task for the price of 20 hours. And your staff member loses their job as a result.


And there you have the boss mentality.

The guy who completes his tasks in 20 hours is gonna get on just fine.
He'll spend the other 15 hours reading, or watching cat memes on the Internet, or chatting up the secretary in accounts. 
He's not gonna tell his boss he's finished everything by Wednesday lunchtime.
Because, well, because of what you said.


----------



## kinnjohn (14 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> If I'm getting incentivised, why am I a fool. ??
> 
> Better a busy and paid fool then an unemployed fool. There is a reason most large scale low skilled manufacturing no longer exists in Ireland and it is because it can be done in a lower cost country and at  much cheaper cost.


It is an area I know very well I worked in costings before I retired  from high-end manufacture high margins and wait for it large scale low margin manufacturing  of commodity engineering parts, to OEM all over the World including China,
You would not last long manufacturing low margin high volume or low volume low margin items with a mindset that includes the word low skilled in Ireland,
I  have seen competitors move to low-cost countries and we wiped them out in a few years all down to their managements mentality of low margins equal low skill,


----------



## Peanuts20 (15 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> And there you have the boss mentality.
> 
> The guy who completes his tasks in 20 hours is gonna get on just fine.
> He'll spend the other 15 hours reading, or watching cat memes on the Internet, or chatting up the secretary in accounts.
> ...


yes, it is the boss mentality, but then I'm incentivised to make hard decisions. And in this day and age, with Lean and other approaches to management (and bear in mind, the Irish state even runs Lean courses for the SME sector via your local LEO), do you not think that any competent manager will know this, spot it and take action? Maybe in some areas the person will "get away with it" for a while, but not in an effective and efficient organisation. And if they don't, in time when the incompetent manager gets replaced they'll get a shock.

And if they aren't spotted, and when, in due course, their employer goes bust because staff were only 55% productive and their competitors undercut them, these guys will be the first ones moaning outside the factory gates as to how "terrible and unfair" it all is.


----------



## Peanuts20 (15 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> It is an area I know very well I worked in costings before I retired  from high-end manufacture high margins and wait for it large scale low margin manufacturing  of commodity engineering parts, to OEM all over the World including China,
> You would not last long manufacturing low margin high volume or low volume low margin items with a mindset that includes the word low skilled in Ireland,
> I  have seen competitors move to low-cost countries and we wiped them out in a few years all down to their managements mentality of low margins equal low skill,


I would never, in a million years, consider any company making engineering parts as low skilled. The firms I'm referring to are the likes of Braun (who just assembled parts), Fruit of the Loom and such like who often make low price commodity goods and who have fled out of Ireland in the last 30 years. Even then, they can upskill staff to the required standard in an Asian country easily enough.


----------



## kinnjohn (15 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> I would never, in a million years, consider any company making engineering parts as low skilled. The firms I'm referring to are the likes of Braun (who just assembled parts), Fruit of the Loom and such like who often make low price commodity goods and who have fled out of Ireland in the last 30 years. Even then, they can upskill staff to the required standard in an Asian country easily enough.


Funny enough I was expecting a reply along these lines,

I will come back to you later with my thoughts on how the PRSI system in Ireland and how the changes to PRSI back in the mid-1980s undermines the chances of people on low wages returning to the workforce on losing their jobs,  I will not be near the internet until the weekend I will reply fully then,


----------



## Allpartied (15 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> yes, it is the boss mentality, but then I'm incentivised to make hard decisions. And in this day and age, with Lean and other approaches to management (and bear in mind, the Irish state even runs Lean courses for the SME sector via your local LEO), do you not think that any competent manager will know this, spot it and take action? Maybe in some areas the person will "get away with it" for a while, but not in an effective and efficient organisation. And if they don't, in time when the incompetent manager gets replaced they'll get a shock.
> 
> And if they aren't spotted, and when, in due course, their employer goes bust because staff were only 55% productive and their competitors undercut them, these guys will be the first ones moaning outside the factory gates as to how "terrible and unfair" it all is.


Of course , that is a typical boss analysis. But it is not what happened. 
What happened is the employee, by his own diligence and initiative has worked out how to do the tasks in 18 hours.
He was employed by HR, some data analysts, a recruitment agency, advertisers and a host of middle management flunkeys.  All, probably,  paid much more than him and, all, undoubtedly,  highly coached in Lean management techniques. 
They determined that the requisute tasks required 35 hours to complete. The employee is not lazy or unproductive,  quite the opposite. But he also knows that revealing his efficiency and focused work, will not help him.  It will mean more work, for the same pay. Maybe a marginal increase.
Meanwhile the profit his labour creates will go in to the pockets of the shareholders, or the directors. 
That's my point. Surplus wealth is all around us, but it is being hoarded by a smaller and smaller group of people.
We can afford a small state pension for everyone at 65. We've just got to prise it out of the hands of wealthy parasites.


----------



## The Horseman (15 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> Of course , that is a typical boss analysis. But it is not what happened.
> What happened is the employee, by his own diligence and initiative has worked out how to do the tasks in 18 hours.
> He was employed by HR, some data analysts, a recruitment agency, advertisers and a host of middle management flunkeys.  All, probably,  paid much more than him and, all, undoubtedly,  highly coached in Lean management techniques.
> They determined that the requisute tasks required 35 hours to complete. The employee is not lazy or unproductive,  quite the opposite. But he also knows that revealing his efficiency and focused work, will not help him.  It will mean more work, for the same pay. Maybe a marginal increase.
> ...


We are a small open economy who need to be as efficient as possible so we can be survive. The more lean we are the more secure your job is. There are plenty of overseas companies who are only too happy to out price us. 

We are too small to think we can control any market. We don't have economies of scale that larger countries have. 

It never ceases to amaze me how people think we can dictate trading conditions and expect companies just to accept them.


----------



## Peanuts20 (16 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> Of course , that is a typical boss analysis. But it is not what happened.
> What happened is the employee, by his own diligence and initiative has worked out how to do the tasks in 18 hours.
> He was employed by HR, some data analysts, a recruitment agency, advertisers and a host of middle management flunkeys.  All, probably,  paid much more than him and, all, undoubtedly,  highly coached in Lean management techniques.
> They determined that the requisute tasks required 35 hours to complete. The employee is not lazy or unproductive,  quite the opposite. But he also knows that revealing his efficiency and focused work, will not help him.  It will mean more work, for the same pay. Maybe a marginal increase.
> ...



Do you really want to spend your entire career in a dead end job doing nothing, not progressing, not taking advantage of a situation to earn more money and gain more wealth.? 

As for the profit you create goes into the pockets of shareholders, if it's a quoted company then perhaps you should consider buying shares and joining the club. Or maybe start up your own company and take all the risks associated with that and just sit back and take in the profits earned by the workers. Sounds easy after all.

I fully agree that income equality has widened and the rich have got richer and that there may be opportunities for an increased tax take as a result, if it is done right. But I would also argue that most people in Ireland are wealthier and better off then they were 40 years ago. I'm a returned emigrant, I was one of the generation that left because we had to, not because we wanted to spend 2 years in Australia dossing around. I worked hard and like all of my Irish friends who left at the same time, I  was able to come back in the Celtic Tiger era, an opportunity that pervious generations didn't have. 

So what's my point? My point is that if you sit on your backside all day at work, doing nothing, you will achieve nothing in life. If you make an effort and get off your rear end then you will be better off instead of feeling bitter about those who are.


----------



## Allpartied (16 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> Do you really want to spend your entire career in a dead end job doing nothing, not progressing, not taking advantage of a situation to earn more money and gain more wealth.?
> 
> As for the profit you create goes into the pockets of shareholders, if it's a quoted company then perhaps you should consider buying shares and joining the club. Or maybe start up your own company and take all the risks associated with that and just sit back and take in the profits earned by the workers. Sounds easy after all.
> 
> ...


I'm  all in favour of rewarding hard work.  Which is why,  at the end of 45 years of daily grind, people should be allowed a few years of relaxation. 65 is old. Pretty soon chronic illnesses will be upon us, then  our ship will be waiting for us. The one dragging behind it , a great birdless silence.

We'd all love to be successful businessmen,  telling everyone what to do, dossing around the golf course,  every Friday afternoon,  but let's get real.
Most people work for a living, often a paycheck to paycheck existence. 
Pay the rent, pay the bills, bring up the kids,  have a pint or two,  watch a match, a couple of weeks in Torremelinos.
Is it really beyond our means to allow low paid workers a short, modest, dignified pension.


----------



## Protocol (16 Sep 2021)

The problem is that it isn't "short".

The average duration of retirement has been increasing, thanks to rising life expectancy.

Thus, the ratio of the length of retirement to employment has been increasing.


Mind you, if somebody has 45 years contributions, I would agree with giving them the SPC at age 65.


----------



## fistophobia (17 Sep 2021)

I really dont get this obsession with getting the full 40 years PRSI stamps.
Is it really worth another 10 years slaving away, just to get 50 EUR more per week on the state pension?
Most people should have private pension arrangements, or maybe I am mixing in an elitist group.


----------



## kinnjohn (17 Sep 2021)

fistophobia said:


> I really dont get this obsession with getting the full 40 years PRSI stamps.
> Is it really worth another 10 years slaving away, just to get 50 EUR more per week on the state pension?
> Most people should have private pension arrangements, or maybe I am mixing in an elitist group.


you may not realize the problem  with the Government raising the pension age is directly connected with your statement above,

I was actually waiting for someone to open this can of worms, the people in the know are keeping the lid on this one for a long time

The Government never closed off any of the loopholes that are draining the PRSI Fund dry and yet went ahead with increasing the pension age on people who had paid into the pension fund for 50 or close to 50 years,

you don't realize the can of worms you just opened  up,

It is the one question I ask close friends of mine when I hear them on raise the pension age because we cannot afford to leave it at 65, but can afford to pay it to others after six or seven years contribution,

In every case so far they see nothing wrong with getting a full pension after 10 contributions on reaching pension age after 10 years of straight contributions or credits or voluntary contributions of 500 euros a year was 250 euro up until a few years ago,

 you already posted a link above on  Leo having a problem with increasing the amount above 4% of payroll for some people yet has no problem increasing the age on people who see 14.75% at present was 18.75 % before the TROIKA arrived,

if Leo does not change his ways the two Simons will be the least of FG worries come to next General Election, the main political parties loss of support can be traced to wanting to hold on to there old Toxic cozy cartels,


----------



## Peanuts20 (20 Sep 2021)

Allpartied said:


> I'm  all in favour of rewarding hard work.  Which is why,  at the end of 45 years of daily grind, people should be allowed a few years of relaxation. 65 is old. Pretty soon chronic illnesses will be upon us, then  our ship will be waiting for us. The one dragging behind it , a great birdless silence.
> 
> We'd all love to be successful businessmen,  telling everyone what to do, dossing around the golf course,  every Friday afternoon,  but let's get real.
> Most people work for a living, often a paycheck to paycheck existence.
> ...


Average life expectancy in Ireland is 81.5 years, so it is not that short a period. Some will shuffle off earlier but many are living far far longer and whilst Covid will cause a blip in those numbers I fully expect they will continue to go north as the years pass. My Dad worked hard for 50 years, physical work and retired at 65 and lived another 22 years. 

So the question is, if you want to retire at 65, are you prepared to pay for it. ? It comes at a cost, either increased taxes or increased payments into your own private pension. Someone, somewhere, has to cough up the hard cold cash for that pension.


----------



## kinnjohn (20 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> Average life expectancy in Ireland is 81.5 years, so it is not that short a period. Some will shuffle off earlier but many are living far far longer and whilst Covid will cause a blip in those numbers I fully expect they will continue to go north as the years pass. My Dad worked hard for 50 years, physical work and retired at 65 and lived another 22 years.
> 
> So the question is, if you want to retire at 65, are you prepared to pay for it. ? It comes at a cost, either increased taxes or increased payments into your own private pension. Someone, somewhere, has to cough up the hard cold cash for that pension.


Should it be changed to how many years you have worked before you reach retirement age, like your dad,
I worked and paid PRSI for close 47 years I retired several years before contributory pension age I can tell you  raising of the pension age was a big factor in my decision to retire before reaching the contributory pension age
If I had my time again and going by the bigotry posted on this site I am sorry I did not go a lot earlier and cash in my PRSI chips if you get my drift,

If someone started work at 16 they would have paid PRSI for 50 years by the time they reach 65 years,
if someone started work at 25 they would have paid PRSI for 50 years by the time they reach 75 Years,
If someone started work at 30 they would have paid PRSI for 50 years by the time they reach 80 Years.

Life expectancy might have gone up but I get the feeling the people working and paid PRSI for 50 years will fall into bad health long before people who got the state pension having contributed only 25 years  before the state pension kicks in,


----------



## ryaner (20 Sep 2021)

While no system is perfect, basing it on years has other issues around part time work. I have a year or two early on where I have full prsi stamps but paid almost no prsi as the hours were low. It feels wrong to count those the same as later years where the prsi payments are multiple times higher.


----------



## kinnjohn (20 Sep 2021)

ryaner said:


> While no system is perfect, basing it on years has other issues around part time work. I have a year or two early on where I have full prsi stamps but paid almost no prsi as the hours were low. It feels wrong to count those the same as later years where the prsi payments are multiple times higher.


I am very well aware of the issue,  The Irish PRSI system from an employee and self-employed has lots of loopholes that the government are aware of but never addressed,
For the Irish social security system to be fair to both direct employees and the self-employed we have no choice but to follow a system as they  have in Austria where you get 80% of your average working life pay  capped around let us say 55K I do not have the actual figure,

One of the advantages is it draws in low paid workers into the Employment pool, this has a big knock-on effect on the amount of
housing needed to support the economy of Austria,

Not picking on them the likes of Dunnes stores Employ lots of part-time workers I think on 18 hr weekly  contracts again not up to date on the actual part-time hrs worked,


----------



## kinnjohn (20 Sep 2021)

ryaner said:


> While no system is perfect, basing it on years has other issues around part time work. I have a year or two early on where I have full prsi stamps but paid almost no prsi as the hours were low. It feels wrong to count those the same as later years where the prsi payments are multiple times higher.


The issue I have is we went after increasing age and never reformed the system,


----------



## noproblem (21 Sep 2021)

Interesting piece on pensions and age related finance on Newstalk just now at 9.45am.


----------



## kinnjohn (21 Sep 2021)

noproblem said:


> Interesting piece on pensions and age related finance on Newstalk just now at 9.45am.


have you got a link I am traveling and out walking all day so will not be near the internet until late tonight,

I suspect it is people who will be retired long before contributory pension age  telling others it is not for you but it is ok for me,


----------



## Marco 1972 (21 Sep 2021)

Thought it was informative and the expert made a good point of the earlier you start one the better it is, ls there a case for auto enrolment from birth and a small state contribution made at that stage.


----------



## Nermal (21 Sep 2021)

Saving more cannot fix the dependency ratio problem.

Either productivity dramatically increases, or living standards do the opposite.

All ageing countries are in a lot of trouble.


----------



## fayf (21 Sep 2021)

Interesting alright:








						Pension advice for pension awareness week | Newstalk
					

When should you start saving for retirement, and how much should you save? David Quinn of Invest...




					www.newstalk.com


----------



## Marco 1972 (21 Sep 2021)

Nermal said:


> Saving more cannot fix the dependency ratio problem.
> 
> Either productivity dramatically increases, or living standards do the opposite.
> 
> All ageing countries are in a lot of trouble.


Sure , the robots will be doing the work at that stage,  we'll all be watching box sets,


----------



## joe sod (21 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> It is the one question I ask close friends of mine when I hear them on raise the pension age because we cannot afford to leave it at 65, but can afford to pay it to others after six or seven years contribution,
> 
> In every case so far they see nothing wrong with getting a full pension after 10 contributions on reaching pension age after 10 years of straight contributions or credits or voluntary contributions of 500 euros a year was 250 euro up until a few years ago,


I don't know why there is not more attention paid to this, the fact that some people can qualify for a full pension after just 10 years of full contributions. This was supposed to be changed to a full pension being based on 40 years contributions , however I hear that people can still qualify based on the above , you can choose the basis that gives you the best pension. It is not so much that these people with so few contributions are taking money from their fellow pensioners but from people that are working now but who won't retire for another 2 decades


----------

