# Is postponement of State Pension Age inevitable



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Jan 2020)

I always bought into the conventional wisdom that because we are living longer we can't afford to pay the State pension from the same age (65).
The argument goes that when Bismark or whoever came up with the idea, folk of 65 only had about a decade left.  But this is missing the point that our economic development has been enormous and unimaginable since those days.

I remember the talk of a leisure society on the back of the huge technological advances.  That hasn't quite happened although Corbyn was mooting a 4 day week in UK Labour's manifesto.  So an argument can be made that society can afford not only to maintain the 65 retirement age but even to reduce it without adversely affecting the standard of living of those at working age.

Of course even though society as a whole could afford longer retirement a situation where  there is 2 workers for 1 pensioner could give rise to demands by the workforce for a bigger slice of the cake even if they are themselves enjoying more cake than ever due to economic growth.


----------



## josh8267 (27 Jan 2020)

The problem is the unfairness Of the Irish PRSI system If you had a fair system I don't think you would have any backlash,
It was never reformed lots of loopholes in the system,
Reform pushed out because it would affect Vested interest Groups who would and should be paying away more into the system ,
Lots of vested Interest groups drawing out of the PRSI system down through the years having paid very little in,

Then you have people like Myself who started work at 15 ,lots of PAYE workers retiring now would have payed in from 16 to 66
without ever claiming anything back,
people who already payed in for 50 years being told they now have to work 52 year before the can get the state Contributory pension,

There are loads of loopholes put in the system ,
There are other loopholes that were supposed to be closed 25 year ago and were not Vested Interest Again,

The problem now is at 66 the people who paid very little /or for a short no of years are delighted to be getting so much per week in there Contributory pension,

The people who paid in all of there working life including Myself are happy with the amount received in Contributory pension But have a problem of fairness Driven by the fact the Government have money to pay  people who only start paying in or signing on for PRSI credits in  the last ten years Before pension age,
If the money is not going to be there Bring fairness in first then we can look at the pension age,

The whole system is in a right mess in 2010 I seen 19.75% of payroll stopped In PRSI today It is 14.75% + USC

Payroll stoppages PRSI +USC are lower in 2020 and they were in 2010 they are trying to find a way to take the   Vested Interest Groups ,who never paid USC Before 2010 out and put the Burden back on PAYE Workers,


----------



## Steven Barrett (30 Jan 2020)

As always with pensions, people leave it too late to do anything. People were told about these changes 8.5 years ago. There was awareness of it but most people decided to ignore it and only kick up a fuss when it impacted them. 

The State doesn't tell you when to retire, they just tell you when you will start to receive the State pension. If you want to retire earlier, save the money yourself. 

And the intention is for the State pension to be paid for the same amount of time for each generation so if we continue to live longer/ be kept alive by medical advances, you can expect the State pension to be paid out even later. 

What can be done to reverse this? Pay more tax? The top rate is already 52% or 55% if self employed and earning over €100k. Should they pay even more tax? Or reduce other services. Where? Health? Education? 

Or you can take responsibility for your own future and save some money for it. 


Steven 
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## elacsaplau (30 Jan 2020)

Well Steven,

"Let me be quite clear!!"...........in the leaders' debate d'other nite, Mary Lou (you know the one who's photo from 25 years ago is on all de posters) said that the Social Insurance Fund is currently over a billion in surplus - so I don't really see what the problem is here! 

I heard a political commentator criticise her but it was clear he hadn't a clue. Firstly, he was trying to make out that there really is no Fund - imagine. Then he was going on about "sustainability" but that has nothing to do with pensions - that's to do with global warming and climate change and stuff. Then he was talking about demongraphics which is just bogeyman talk.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Jan 2020)

First thing lets stop increasing the amount of the state pension being paid out.


----------



## Leper (30 Jan 2020)

There is much talk about people who were manual workers probably not being fit enough to work after 66 through working continuously outdoors and difficult physical efforts. I don't think they should be forced to work beyond their 66th birthday. I reckon it is unsafe for them to do so. After a new government is formed I reckon the pension age will be 66 and probably written in stone.

Many of us were in unmanual jobs and worked indoors and therefore no adverse physical  or mental problems occurred. There are people in this bracket who could work into their 70's without any fear or reduction of output. Except in specific circumstances people working in the Public/Civil service are obliged to retire at 65 (again there is talk of this being pushed out later).

A happy medium must be found where if anybody wishes to retire at 65/66 they can so do and receive the pension that they have contributed to. Furthermore, if people are in full physical and mental health they should be allowed to work longer if they so wish.


----------



## Leper (30 Jan 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> First thing lets stop increasing the amount of the state pension being paid out.



I'd love to hear a contestant in the general election coming out with this - Certain political death for him/her and the political party represented.


----------



## Steven Barrett (30 Jan 2020)

Leper said:


> There is much talk about people who were manual workers probably not being fit enough to work after 66 through working continuously outdoors and difficult physical efforts. I don't think they should be forced to work beyond their 66th birthday. I reckon it is unsafe for them to do so. After a new government is formed I reckon the pension age will be 66 and probably written in stone.
> 
> Many of us were in unmanual jobs and worked indoors and therefore no adverse physical  or mental problems occurred. There are people in this bracket who could work into their 70's without any fear or reduction of output. Except in specific circumstances people working in the Public/Civil service are obliged to retire at 65 (again there is talk of this being pushed out later).
> 
> A happy medium must be found where if anybody wishes to retire at 65/66 they can so do and receive the pension that they have contributed to. Furthermore, if people are in full physical and mental health they should be allowed to work longer if they so wish.



100% of public servants are in a pension scheme. 35% of private sector workers are in a pension scheme. If you are in a manual labour job your bones will be aching well before the age of 65. So you put away some money so you can stop working before the State tells you to retire. 

Even if you just save enough for a couple of years OAP

Retire at 65 and receive Jobseekers - €205 a week for 12 months. Shortfall between that and OAP - €2,240
OAP equivalent for age 66 - €12,900
Total income to be saved - €15,140

If you start saving 10 years out and earn a return of 2% per annum, you need to save €26 a week to bridge that gap. For most working people, they can afford that. But they choose not to. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## jpd (30 Jan 2020)

elacsaplau said:


> Firstly, he was trying to make out that there really is no Fund - imagine


There is no fund - let me be clear - THERE IS NO FUND

This year's state pensions are paid from the money paid from the taxes and PRSI paid by those working this year
Currently there are 5 working people for each pensioner - so 5 peoples taxes/PRSI are available to pay 1 person's pension
In the foreseeable future, 2035, there will be 3 workers/pensioner and by 2050, only 2, per pensioner.
So either the pension will be reduced massively or taxes/PRSI will increase massively or some combination of both


----------



## elacsaplau (30 Jan 2020)

jpd said:


> There is no fund - let me be clear - THERE IS NO FUND



JPD,

I'm just repeating what I heard on the radio and saw on the television. Are you somehow implying that Peggy Sue / Mary Lou might have been making things up? I thought that only certain posters on AAM did that!


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (30 Jan 2020)

jpd said:


> There is no fund - let me be clear - THERE IS NO FUND



The Social Insurance Fund is an accounting fiction.

It is not independently managed on an actuarial basis. There is no investment strategy. It simply pays out on an eligibility basis whatever rates are announced on budget day and legislated for soon after.

The Fund has existed since the 50s and to my knowledge has been in surplus for two brief periods: in the last few years and in the period just before the crash. The Exchequer is the residual financier. When the Fund is in deficit (ie, most of the time) the taxpayer bridges the gap - there is no reduction in benefits.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Jan 2020)

Leper said:


> I'd love to hear a contestant in the general election coming out with this - Certain political death for him/her and the political party represented.



True - to have any chance they'd need to double down on it and go into attack mode on all the other parties plans and explain why it has to be done to ensure there is money to pay out future pensioners. Seems like a more reasonable position to forego future increases than the disproportionate impact on those in the 65-68 gap when the state age was raised without doing anything about the contracts\rights of those affected.


----------



## galway_blow_in (30 Jan 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> First thing lets stop increasing the amount of the state pension being paid out.



And what is Willie o dea to spend all his time doing at national level if he can't call for increased goodies for pensioners?


----------



## elacsaplau (30 Jan 2020)

Shaving


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Jan 2020)

I've said it before and I'll say it again... the gubberement want us to live forever - they don't want us smoking, drinking, eating unhealthily - but they don't want to pay the pensions, housing, etc costs of those long lifers. Can't make up their minds!


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Jan 2020)

Leper said:


> There is much talk about people who were manual workers probably not being fit enough to work after 66 through working continuously outdoors and difficult physical efforts. I don't think they should be forced to work beyond their 66th birthday. I reckon it is unsafe for them to do so. After a new government is formed I reckon the pension age will be 66 and probably written in stone.



Those who started working at 18 in physical \ manual jobs should be assessed differently to those who started working in their 20s in sit down jobs after X years in college. I say that as someone who spent 4 years in college, had fees paid by government and works in a sit down job.

Need to look at accomodation of older people in the workforce \ gradual retirement, with 6 hour days or 4 day weeks.
That is, if we want 60 somethings to work and be productive, both for their own income\wealth and to reduce the burden on the state finances.


----------



## josh8267 (30 Jan 2020)

elacsaplau said:


> Well Steven,
> 
> "Let me be quite clear!!"...........in the leaders' debate d'other nite, Mary Lou (you know the one who's photo from 25 years ago is on all de posters) said that the Social Insurance Fund is currently over a billion in surplus - so I don't really see what the problem is here!
> 
> ...


----------



## Early Riser (30 Jan 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again... the gubberement want us to live forever - they don't want us smoking, drinking, eating unhealthily - but they don't want to pay the pensions, housing, etc costs of those long lifers. Can't make up their minds!



Would a free booze and nicotine allowance in lieu of both pension payment at 65, and any further increase in the current pension rate, be a win-win ?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (30 Jan 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Those who started working at 18 in physical \ manual jobs should be assessed differently to those who started working in their 20s in sit down jobs after X years in college. I say that as someone who spent 4 years in college, had fees paid by government and works in a sit down job.



But if we do that we should look at rates of payment or someone like me who will pay in two times in PRSI than I will ever draw down in a pension.

You can't have a flat-rate system without a universal retirement age.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (30 Jan 2020)

What annoys me even more is the implication that older people are unable to work.

Ireland has made *huge *strides in employing older people in recent years (not that the media would ever notice).

55% of 60-64 year olds were in the labour force in 2019, up from 40% in 2004

12% of over-65s are in employment, up from 8% in 2004.


----------



## EmmDee (30 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Is postponement of State Pension Age inevitable



Yes



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But this is missing the point that our economic development has been enormous and unimaginable since those days.



Only matched (if not exceeded) by (a) increase in life expectancy and (b) general population growth




Duke of Marmalade said:


> I remember the talk of a leisure society on the back of the huge technological advances.



On "Tomorrow's World". But other than futurists, it has never been a topic for more immediate planning becasue it was never on the near horizon



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So an argument can be made that society can afford not only to maintain the 65 retirement age but even to reduce it without adversely affecting the standard of living of those at working age.



Not sure the meanderings of Tomorrow's World or similar count as "the argument being made". There has been a pension concern knocking around since I did Leaving Certificate Economics - late 80's. So there is no question of "reduc(ing) it without adversely affecting the standard of living".



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course even though society as a whole could afford longer retirement...



You haven't made that case...



Duke of Marmalade said:


> ...a situation where  there is 2 workers for 1 pensioner could give rise to demands by the workforce for a bigger slice of the cake even if they are themselves enjoying more cake than ever due to economic growth.



A 2:1 ratio won't change the demands for the tax payers looking for a slice of the cake. It'll be the same as now. The difference is that we currently have 5:1 and therefore there is some scope to meet tax payers demands. Therefore a 2:1 ration means that there will be significantly increased transfer from tax payers along with a significant reduction in "the cake" and a reduction in their "slice"


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Jan 2020)

Valid points _EmmDee_. I note in particular the population growth which has been spectacular by historic standards though not, I suggest, as spectacular as the technology induced economic growth. 

I suppose I should rephrase the question as: "just because we will be living longer is it inevitable that we should be working longer?"  If economic productivity was static this would be necessary if we wish to maintain our standard of living.  But if we are enjoying huge economic improvements in productivity (as we have been) can we not think in terms of using the increased productivity to have more leisure including longer in retirement?

Framing the question in terms of the state pension brings in the concept of taxation transfers from the working population to retirees and these probably would be politically unsustainable if the ratio fell from 5:1 to 2:1 even if the increased productivity would enable the transfers without reducing the standard of living that the working population had been accustomed to.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (30 Jan 2020)

Productivity growth will also slow as the population ages.

Older people tend to demand a lot of labour-intensive services like health and social care. Difficult to automate these.


----------



## michaelm (30 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> "just because we will be living longer is it inevitable that we should be working longer?"


Initially yes methinks.  But at some point there simply won't be enough work and we will have to look at some universal basic income model, shorter working weeks and earlier retirement, in the interest so social cohesion.


----------



## EmmDee (30 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I suppose I should rephrase the question as: "just because we will be living longer is it inevitable that we should be working longer?"  If economic productivity was static this would be necessary if we wish to maintain our standard of living.  But if we are enjoying huge economic improvements in productivity (as we have been) can we not think in terms of using the increased productivity to have more leisure including longer in retirement?



The increased productivity has been used in society - just not to increase retirement. It's been used to significantly reduce the % of income spent on food, significantly decrease the cost of travel, increased holidays, social security, health care, infrastructure, technology ownership etc etc

The incresed productivity has been spent already.


----------



## josh8267 (30 Jan 2020)

First off and lets not be fooling ourselves , We already have a very high no of people on disability pension in Ireland,, I did some work for a small Engineering Company after I retired

they were big into keeping the turnover of workers as low as possible Skill retention very Important ,
There contract and work pension was set up to retire at 65, there was a unwritten rule provided you were not missing work from underline health Issues you could stay on an extended contract and hold your clock card number in a lay off situation,

One of the first things the company found and you will see it first hand over in extreme politics Forum is Dog  in the manger younger worker resentment towards people of retirement age,
The dog in the manger type will not eat the hay but the dog will not let the cow eat it just because he can stop her,

Dog in the manger type problems
Is he/she is watching and making sure there is no special treatment because of there age, I seen this just to give you an example I seen older worker  having reached 65 and not yet 66 who had gone for a Prostate biopsy and had returned to work a day after later younger worker noticed he got a lighter job for a few days, not fair says he;
Same person could not understand why he has not retired to be honest I heard a member of management making the same remark,
He would have being one of there best Workers But you still have younger Members on and off the floor Questioning why he still needed to stay working

There are lots of companies in Ireland where the work was easy who would offer redundancy once people came up to 60 years old ,
I know some who never worked again just used the system to extend there welfare until the got to retirement,

Stevens Idea of paying into a pension and retiring early will not fix the reason given for increasing pensions I am afraid knowing how Ireland Works,


I Know people once the moved the age to 66 and forcing  to draw unemployment for the first time Before Retirement  with underline Health Issues
And have a private pension are asking themselves why wait until 66 why not go at 64, and use up all of there Benefit before I retire, never entered there head until the government put the thought in there heads,

If they have an underline health condition why wait until you were on unemployment before getting it looked after,

if they Government want you to draw unemployment benefit before retirement why not draw Illness benefit also before retirement also and retire 21 months before pension age if you have any health/ age related issues,


----------



## Steiny (31 Jan 2020)

Someone mentioned 66 being written in stone as future possibility... Is it not now 68 for most people? Also the number of credits you need and way it's calculated has been changed already... People have natural stopping times. The brain begins to slow long before 66 for most people and outlook is different. It's natural. A 70 year old won't be able for same role as 50 or 30 year old. Move into shorter hours and different more high level roles would be needed for such people...


----------



## josh8267 (31 Jan 2020)

a


----------



## Steiny (31 Jan 2020)

I can see a lot of people working later in the workforce and basically going off on sick certs... Stressed/depressed etc. Yes, people need to save for retirement. How does it factor that years ago most families only had one person working outside the home? Does the aging population still eat up those gains? Govt wants everyone in employment and paying into pension. As far as i can see, if you are civil servant, your pension prospects are still miles better than being in private sector paying money to irish life with no guarantees, tax benefits or not.


----------



## josh8267 (31 Jan 2020)

Steiny said:


> I can see a lot of people working later in the workforce and basically going off on sick certs... Stressed/depressed etc. Yes, people need to save for retirement. How does it factor that years ago most families only had one person working outside the home? Does the aging population still eat up those gains? Govt wants everyone in employment and paying into pension. As far as i can see, if you are civil servant, your pension prospects are still miles better than being in private sector paying money to irish life with no guarantees, tax benefits or not.
> [/QUOTE
> I am enjoying


----------



## josh8267 (31 Jan 2020)

SBarrett said:


> As always with pensions, people leave it too late to do anything. People were told about these changes 8.5 years ago. There was awareness of it but most people decided to ignore it and only kick up a fuss when it impacted them.
> 
> The State doesn't tell you when to retire, they just tell you when you will start to receive the State pension. If you want to retire earlier, save the money yourself.
> 
> ...


You are missing the point ,
The Government and supporters of extending the age to 68 make the point that we need more people working until they are 68  for lots of reasons leaving the state pension to one side,
Right now if the state had not forgone tax on my pension I  would still be working , Company I worked for are finding it hard to replace the people retiring at present,not to mention the future,
So how about doing away with a few loopholes and tax breaks system,
I can only get a tax break on a % related to my age,  Yet the company I worked for can put large amounts in to my pension and get tax relief and off set it against there profits,
There are lots of loopholes to allow Early retirement funded out of tax breaks,
If we want people to work longer , only allow tax break on pension that kick in at the same age as state pension,
Apply a pension levy on pensions  the Government gave  tax breaks if taken before state pension age,

The point I am making is You never know where the shoe pinches unless you are wearing it,
The people retiring today may not have the same breaks in life as people born after them,


----------



## Steiny (31 Jan 2020)

I think by and large young people working today will be worse off in retirement. Fewer companies offering the db and dc pensions of old.  pensions in public sector are about as good as it gets. A company is not obliged to contribute towards your pension - if they do its a perk and 5pc is typical (talking about a private sector company). Factor in the cost of housing, 2 people out working and trying to pay for childcare, more commuting.  these so called lucrative private pensions that you're talking about - Have you seen what you need to contribute to get at age 68 even?? Bearing in mind that it is in no way guaranteed, i think the tax break just mitigates the inherent risk of it being worth nothing at the end.


----------



## josh8267 (31 Jan 2020)

Steiny said:


> I think by and large young people working today will be worse off in retirement. Fewer companies offering the db and dc pensions of old.  pensions in public sector are about as good as it gets. A company is not obliged to contribute towards your pension - if they do its a perk and 5pc is typical (talking about a private sector company). Factor in the cost of housing, 2 people out working and trying to pay for childcare, more commuting.  these so called lucrative private pensions that you're talking about - Have you seen what you need to contribute to get at age 68 even?? Bearing in mind that it is in no way guaranteed, i think the tax break just mitigates the inherent risk of it being worth nothing at the end.


I take your point I think we are getting our wires crossed,
I have seen this point made before on askaboutmoney
Do you know how much tax is foregone each year in pension breaks ,
Steve should be able to give us the figure,


----------



## odyssey06 (31 Jan 2020)

josh8267 said:


> Do you know how much tax is foregone each year in pension breaks ,
> Steve should be able to give us the figure,



The 'real' figures are a lot more complicated and probably unknowable.
If you assume vast majority of retirees are going to stay resident in Ireland, then as they draw down their pension (which is larger due to tax breaks) they are spending that money here. It probably also means the state is spending less to support them in other ways.


----------



## Steiny (31 Jan 2020)

Ya, sorry. I see what you mean. Tax payable on the drawn down pension too of course. I think there are real human barriers to lots of people continuing to work past 65. People are living longer but those added years are not all healthy. The added years to life expectancy dont all translate to productive or even well years. Teachers, nurses, doctors, people in IT, people in outdoor jobs, engineering, science, retail, services industries where you are not sitting at a desk. People cannot work indefinitely in these roles or be as productive as they were. When you hear people in the esri talking about working into your 70s, you have to say it's ivory tower stuff, at least without change to the culture of the working world today.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (31 Jan 2020)

Steiny said:


> When you hear people in the esri talking about working into your 70s, you have to say it's ivory tower stuff, at least without change to the culture of the working world today.



Nonsense!

In the US nearly 20% of 70-74 year olds are in employment, and just under 9% of 75-79 year olds are! A full one in four white men aged between 70 and 74 is in a job.

See for yourself.


----------



## odyssey06 (31 Jan 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> In the US nearly 20% of 70-74 year olds are in employment, and just under 9% of 75-79 year olds are! A full one in four white men aged between 70 and 74 is in a job.



Would be interesting to see whether they are full or part-time, how many hours per week are they clocking up, are they professionals \ running a business.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (31 Jan 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Would be interesting to see whether they are full or part-time, how many hours per week are they clocking up, are they professionals \ running a business.



They of course have less working hours and do different kinds of work than people in their 20s.

But your working habits evolve over your lifetime anyway.

The ICTU proposition is something like "no-one-is-able-to-work-a-day-after-their-65th-birthday" which is just ridiculous.


----------



## josh8267 (31 Jan 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Nonsense!
> 
> In the US nearly 20% of 70-74 year olds are in employment, and just under 9% of 75-79 year olds are! A full one in four white men aged between 70 and 74 is in a job.
> 
> See for yourself.


In the US most Workers only have a few days holidays ,
No point talking about the USA we are in the EU what is happening in the EU that counts,
Yes I have seen workers in Manufacturing in USA well into there seventies but the culture not the same in Ireland in the work place
Over there as you get older you will be moved into areas suitable for your age,
I posted already on the dog in the manger culture in Ireland,
I posted about a company wanting to retain skill and the culture around why is he/she is being treated better than me,
How many on hear want to remove all tax breaks so they will have to work into there seventies,like the USA,


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (31 Jan 2020)

josh8267 said:


> No point talking about the USA we are in the EU what is happening in the EU that counts,



Indeed. The cultural gap between the USA (largely populated by Europeans) and the old continent makes all comparisons impossible.


----------



## odyssey06 (31 Jan 2020)

josh8267 said:


> In the US most Workers only have a few days holidays ,
> No point talking about the USA we are in the EU what is happening in the EU that counts,
> Yes I have seen workers in Manufacturing in USA well into there seventies but the culture not the same in Ireland in the work place
> Over there as you get older you will be moved into areas suitable for your age,
> ...



And even in the relatively more open to older workers US environment, you still have 80% of 70 year olds NOT working at all, based on those stats.


----------



## josh8267 (31 Jan 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Indeed. The cultural gap between the USA (largely populated by Europeans) and the old continent makes all comparisons impossible.


no point ask yourself the question will I agree to to 4 or five holidays a year from the day they increase the pension age,


----------



## josh8267 (31 Jan 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> And even in the relatively more open to older workers US environment, you still have 80% of 70 year olds NOT working at all, based on those stats.


I am well aware of that,
The problem with increasing the pension age in Ireland without reforming and removing the tax loopholes which allow others to retire early who are  in a better position to use loopholes,
I include myself as I retired at 62 private sector because of tax loopholes others workers were not in a position to take advantage of,


----------



## Steiny (31 Jan 2020)

Think the US is hardly any example to cite. Example of what happens to society and politics when the social contract is broken and free markets allowed to run above all else. Let's not have any statutory maternity leave either like the US... I think the only western democracy not to have this.


----------



## josh8267 (1 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> And even in the relatively more open to older workers US environment, you still have 80% of 70 year olds NOT working at all, based on those stats.


Last time I was in New York most of the staff looked to be in there 70 +(sorry Duke ) but I don't know if the had a pension suspect they just loved working in macy's
If I go down to my local B&Q in Ireland most work part time lots already drawing the state pension,I talk to them they know my age I have a discount card for oldies, any I know well tell me they are on low part time wages but are grateful for the work ,

This is the first time in there life they are in a position to save a few bob , no private pensions low paid jobs all of there lives used every cent the ever earned to give the best start in life to those coming after them and proud to say so,

,all worked full time never took a break from work paid into the system for fifty years don't feel bad about collecting the pension they and there employer paid for,


----------



## josh8267 (1 Feb 2020)

I think I have posted that I first started work at 15, but my first job was about five years before when I had an evening job filling coal for a local business they had a corn mill hardware grocery shop and pub,
People tell me Ireland has changed for the better
When I look back to that time nothing has changed in Ireland since the 1960s,
the equipment was a weighting scale with two 56lbs weight to make up one hundredweight
canvas bags to take one hundredweight of coal,
bags 56lb/112lb wire ties, and twine ties, packing needle ,roll of twine,
steel name plate tags on which regular customers names were written on to be placed on the bags once full,
A few bucket a few shovels few coal spong/fork/grape!and a few rags,
first I scooped up some coal with the bucket and put it in the bag, I would then put the bag on the scales fill until the scale brought down the scale
meaning there was a hundredweight of coal in the bag,
Next you took back around half a bucket of coal to start the next bag it was well known that this was done you were buying a bag of coal not a hundredweight of coal so to speak,
You kept that up close to finishing time you had a few extra chores to do one was to pull a some bags to one side put an extra half bucket of coal in them and place the local Vet  School Teacher local post office owner and a few more well off peoples name on them,

I remember the local parish priest who already was supplied with free turf from people who cut turf locally coming in to get a bag of coal I went to give him a bag from the lot almost all of his parishioners was getting no way he was having none of it he wanted a big bag split into two bags and place it in his Morris Minor car he was part of an inner circle who were charged the same as the people missing the half bucket,

I  remember being at mass and the Easter dues being read out from the alter ,Mr and Mrs owner of the hardware store five pound next would be the people getting the half bucket of coal for the same price as the people who were only able to pay two and six,

When i read about increasing the pension Age to 68 in the papers and other places I think back to my first job ,

Duke seen you started this thread it is only fair for you know where I was coming form when you Queried
Google
pension 370000
In other words check are the people pushing up the pension age to 68 paying the same for there bag of coal or are they getting some extra,


----------

