# State Pension 67 in 2021, 68 in 2028



## moneymakeover

I see noises in the news about the anger people feel about the increase in age for retirement with 67 becoming the age for receipt of state pension from 2021

and by 2028 to be 68

Is it at all likely these plans will be postponed : is there enough public opinion to sway the decision?

I mention this particularly in light of the upcoming general election


----------



## rob oyle

I saw this, then wondered why it was newsworthy... wasn't this set back years ago?


----------



## Monbretia

It was but the ones it will affect first are getting closer to that age now so it hasn't affected anybody yet!  It was easy ignore it when it was years off having any impact.


----------



## noproblem

In answer to the actual question I would, like you, say that that if enough noise is made it will change. There's also the chance that in order to form a Goverment it might require one side having to agree that the age be brought back somewhat. Will it actually happen? Nah! not in the long term.


----------



## jpd

It might if 20- and 30-year olds realise how much tax they will need to pay to afford the pension payouts!


----------



## MrEarl

Hello, 

What happens if you decide to emigrate and permanently go to live in France, can you claim their State pension from age 64?


----------



## Leper

MrEarl said:


> Hello,
> 
> What happens if you decide to emigrate and permanently go to live in France, can you claim their State pension from age 64?



You can emigrate to France and if you contribute to their social welfare system for years you will be entitled to a French State Pension. If you hadn't contributed to their welfare system, then you'll have to settle with the crumbs of a Pension from Ireland provided you have enough SW contributions here.

Moneymaker's post (above) while laudable will probably fall on deaf ears.


----------



## Monbretia

It's the free travel I'd really like


----------



## Conan

When today’s retirees first entered the workforce and started paying PRSI (say 1974) the average life expectancy for a male retiree then at age 65 was circa 11 years. Today it is c20 years. And it’s about 4 years longer for females. That’s a huge increase and a very costly increase. And when you add in free travel, medical card or GP visit card (from age 70), household benefit package etc, it all has to be paid out of somewhere (unless SF found a money tree or plan to rob a few more Banks). 
And our State Pension is significantly higher than in the UK/NI.


----------



## ATC110

Conan said:


> And our State Pension is significantly higher than in the UK/NI.


Not necessarily - there are various income top-ups, non-cash benefits and the cost of living is less in the UK; a comparison between the amounts of each state pension is simplistic


----------



## Leper

Conan said:


> And our State Pension is significantly higher than in the UK/NI.



But, they get their GP visits, hospitalisation, prescriptions etc for £10.00 per year - they don't need VHI or Laya.


----------



## ALEXA

Vote for Sinn Fein in the upcoming election. Mary Lou has promised to reduce the pension age to 65!


----------



## Sue Ellen

Leper said:


> But, they get their GP visits, *hospitalisation*, prescriptions etc for £10.00 per year - they don't need VHI or Laya.



and who in their right mind, if they have any money at all, would care to rely on the public system, with some waiting lists that would take years for them to be treated or in some cases to be even seen by a consultant.

I have some OAP relatives whose family club together to pay the VHI premium as they can't afford it themselves and are afraid to rely on the public system because they have health issues.


----------



## Conan

ALEXA said:


> Vote for Sinn Fein in the upcoming election. Mary Lou has promised to reduce the pension age to 65!


SF promise to reduce pension age, abolish property tax, abolish USC, abolish all waiting lists etc etc. That €4m inheritance they got will go far.


----------



## nest egg

I'm surprised this is only coming to the fore now, nobody seemed to bat an eyelid when it first was legislated for. Compare and contrast with our French friends...


----------



## fayf

mojoask said:


> I'm surprised this is only coming to the fore now, nobody seemed to bat an eyelid when it first was legislated for. Compare and contrast with our French friends...



i read manyFrench employees, who work in public transport, can retire on full pensions about aged 53, - fairly incredible, but it gets better, the one that topped them all, was Dancers, who are employees of Paris Opera House, who  can retire at aged just 42.


----------



## ATC110

Sue Ellen said:


> and who in their right mind, if they have any money at all, would care to rely on the public system, with some waiting lists that would take years for them to be treated or in some cases to be even seen by a consultant.
> 
> I have some OAP relatives whose family club together to pay the VHI premium as they can't afford it themselves and are afraid to rely on the public system because they have health issues.



You're referring to the Irish system rather than the UK, which was referenced above.


----------



## nest egg

fayf said:


> i read manyFrench employees, who work in public transport, can retire on full pensions about aged 53, - fairly incredible, but it gets better, the one that topped them all, was Dancers, who are employees of Paris Opera House, who  can retire at aged just 42.



Agree, it's incredible and it's also unsustainable. It's more the idea though that the French are making a point of this, before the reform comes in, whereas here we're doing it after-the-fact.


----------



## DeeKie

The gap between the state pension and the new retirement age is going to be a problem.


----------



## moneymakeover

Article today's Irish times

*Gap between retirement and getting State pension set to widen*
*‘It is a scandal. Enda Kenny got to go off with a nice package and he doesn’t have to wait’*






The pension age is rising and a growing number of older people are being affected.
Kitty Holland Social Affairs Correspondent
about 9 hours ago

Patrick Heavy (57) works in a factory in Co Cavan. He will have to retire when he is 65 in 2027, but he will not be entitled to the State pension until 2030.
During the three years between his retirement and getting the pension, he will be entitled to Jobseekers’ Benefit. It is €203 per week, while the State pension is €248 per week – a difference of €2,340 a year.
In addition, while on jobseekers’ he will have to prove he is actively looking for work.
“It’s a scandal,” says Mr Heavy. “I am very angry about it. I wouldn’t mind working a couple of extra years but they don’t want people working in the factory whose health is going downhill and what have you. I’m talking about it now because there’s no point talking about it when I’m 65.”


----------



## moneymakeover

Also Irish times

*Why are people so annoyed?*
There are two reasons, really. First, it’s a matter of money. The maximum weekly payment under Jobseekers’ Benefit is €203 – and that only lasts nine months. After that, your payment will be means tested. With the State pension, you can receive up to €248.30 a week.
A second, and not insignificant, issue is more personal. Many people object to being obliged to apply for unemployment welfare payments. They have worked all their lives without needing to rely on welfare and do not see why they should be forced to on retirement instead of receiving a pension for which they have been paying PRSI all their working lives


----------



## Allpartied

It was Mary Hanafin who introduced the changes, back at the fag end of the last FF govt. Calmly telling the people that they would just have to keep working until they were nearly 70. She then lost her seat and retired on a very generous pension,  aged 50.
She's not the only one, of course, but that took some neck.


----------



## Conan

There is an article in the Irish Times today which incorrectly outlines how Jobseekers works for those retiring at age 65 currently.
The article states that JB is payable for 9 months. However it is current practice that if the individual is receiving JB after age 65, it will continue for the 12 months to age 66 (when currently the State Pension kicks in). The IT suggests that after 9 months the JB is means tested. Wrong. What is means tested is Jobseekers Allowance, but not relevant for those retiring at age 65.
Furthermore, the article states that the claimant must be available and actively seeking employment. Wrong. Once the claimant is over age 62 it is again the practice that they are not required to take part in any “activation “ process, so not required to be available or seeking employment.
What is not decided, is how this will work from 2021 when the State Pension age goes to 67. That will be a decision for any new Government.


----------



## RedOnion

Conan said:


> There is an article in the Irish Times today which incorrectly outlines how Jobseekers works for those retiring at age 65 currently.


The article looks like it was effectively written by SIPTU. It's hardly going to be factual...


----------



## Steven Barrett

Why do people keep on comparing the Irish system to the French system? They are a country of 67 million people and their tax income is multiples of ours. Employers also pay much higher levels of PRSI. 

The pension age is only going to be extended as we live longer. The intention of the government is to have each generation receive the OAP for the same amount of time based on mortality rates. 

What can you do about it? No one is forcing you to work until 67 or 68. You can retire whenever you want. But the government is saying they can't afford to pay you the OAP from 65. So if that is when you want to retire, save the money yourself. Put a few quid aside every week or month and use it to provide yourself with an income for those few years. 

It's incredible how much people ignore the need to save any money preferring to spend it instead. But then when they actually need money, they give out that the government aren't providing for them. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## moneymakeover

*FF and FG in desperate bids to hold on to grey vote amid claim older people used as election 'pawns'
The planned increase in the State pension age to 67 will be deferred pending a review if Fianna Fáil takes power, Micheál Martin has promised.*
Fine Gael, meanwhile, has pledged to bring in a new "transition payment" so older people don't have to sign on to the dole until they qualify for the pension.
Social Protection Minister Regina Doherty said the payment would be a "pensions pathway" but provided no details of the sums involved or the qualifying criteria.


----------



## moneymakeover

SBarrett said:


> Why do people keep on comparing the Irish system to the French system? They are a country of 67 million people and their tax income is multiples of ours. Employers also pay much higher levels of PRSI.
> 
> The pension age is only going to be extended as we live longer. The intention of the government is to have each generation receive the OAP for the same amount of time based on mortality rates.
> 
> What can you do about it? No one is forcing you to work until 67 or 68. You can retire whenever you want. But the government is saying they can't afford to pay you the OAP from 65. So if that is when you want to retire, save the money yourself. Put a few quid aside every week or month and use it to provide yourself with an income for those few years.
> 
> It's incredible how much people ignore the need to save any money preferring to spend it instead. But then when they actually need money, they give out that the government aren't providing for them.
> 
> 
> Steven
> www.bluewaterfp.ie


The state pension is total 36k over the years 65 to 68
Maybe 72k for a couple.

Saving
500 per month would take 144 months
12 years!

Have I got this right?

But isn't saving for retirement the point of pensions?

Why do individuals have to start worrying about these gap years.

And if you draw down your private pension aged 65 it goes lot less than if you draw down at 68


----------



## PGF2016

This is one of very few unpopular but prudent decisions made by a government that I'm aware of. It makes perfect sense to increase the retirement age as people live longer and in better health.


----------



## MrEarl

Hello,

This is all very simple - the Government can't afford to cover its obligations to the people of Ireland, hence they pushed the age out for commencement of the oap.

The population is living longer, so the cost is rising. That's making the problem even worse.

It's long past time that everyone accepted the reality of this situation, had honest conversions about it, and put alternative arrangements in place - the State should be top of that list btw, and speed up the roll out of a new plan, for future generations of pensioners.

At the very same time, the State also needs to do away with its exceptionally generous pensions for civil servants (including TDs etc). Sure, they won't like it, will go on strike, protest etc but it's long past time that we all had a reality check here. Ireland doesn't have the money to pay what it has promised, simple as that.


----------



## misemoi

The key issue is forced retirement from work at 65, no? This will definitely need to change.


----------



## moneymakeover

misemoi said:


> The key issue is forced retirement from work at 65, no? This will definitely need to change.


Definitely one issue. Perhaps the main issue.
Demonstrates the lack of thinking that some think people can't work beyond 65 and at same time others are expected to work to 68!

Private sector may not wish to continue working beyond say 66. What about them?


----------



## misemoi

So our expectations and financial planning need to change in line with the new standard of living. My Dad always says people were old and crippled at 50 in his youth, but now with joint replacement, better meds for arthritis etc 60s isn't old. So the old retire at 50 needs to become the new retire at 60. Also note the later ages at which people are having children, meaning dependents at a much later age. There has to be some level of personal responsibility.


----------



## Steven Barrett

moneymakeover said:


> The state pension is total 36k over the years 65 to 68
> Maybe 72k for a couple.
> 
> Saving
> 500 per month would take 144 months
> 12 years!
> 
> Have I got this right?
> 
> But isn't saving for retirement the point of pensions?
> 
> Why do individuals have to start worrying about these gap years.
> 
> And if you draw down your private pension aged 65 it goes lot less than if you draw down at 68



It's €12,911 per person, so €38,734 to save per person. If I got a modest return of 2% on my savings, saving €300 a month for 12 years would meet that target. 

And yes, saving for retirement is the exact point of pensions. The only people who have to worry about gap years are those who haven't saved for retirement and who stop before they receive the OAP. In cases where an employer has a mandatory retirement age of 65, this will have to be changed. 

If people want to rely on the State telling you when you can retire and how much you can live on in retirement, they can carry on doing nothing and then complain when the State changes the rules. 

The whole purpose of saving and investing is going without now so you can use the money later. That's lost on a lot of people. 


Steven 
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## michaelm

The State pension age will probably have to be pushed out to 70 over time.  However there should be an option to drawdown from age 65 on a actuarially reduced rate such that it would be cost neutral for the State.  This might suit those who have a private pension or other provision and therefore may not require a full rate pension to live reasonably comfortably.


----------



## jpd

I love the way people say "The State must pay my ....." 

What would make the arguments much clearer would be to say "The taxpayer must pay my ...." or to make it even clearer "Those paying tax must pay my ...."

Almost everyone pays tax of some kind (income tax, prsi, usc, VAT, excise tax, etc) so when we say X will pay it is really "We"


----------



## inflation

As usual the government has already looked after their own, further pension apartheid:









						State subsidises public sector retirees to cover gap until State pension
					

Supplementary pension means only private sector workers are left in pensions limbo




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Early Riser

inflation said:


> As usual the government has already looked after their own, further pension apartheid:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State subsidises public sector retirees to cover gap until State pension
> 
> 
> Supplementary pension means only private sector workers are left in pensions limbo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com



That article is not entirely accurate.

The PS person retiring at 65 would not be entitled to claim the Supplementary Pension until they have exhausted any Social Welfare payment to which they may be entitled. In effect this means claiming Jobseekers Benefit. It is only when JB runs out that they can claim Supplementary - or if the amount of the JB is less than the Supplementary to which they may be entitled . Supplementary is only equal to the value of the State Pension for those with full service, usually 40 years.


----------



## Sarenco

The Citizens' Assembly (which, IMO, has been a surprisingly successful innovation in our political system) met back in 2017 to consider how best to respond to the challenges and opportunities of an ageing population.

On the pension front, the Assembly made the following recommendations:-

87% of the members recommended that the Government should introduce some form of mandatory pension scheme to supplement the State pension.
96% of the members recommended the removal of the anomaly, which arises when a person who must retire at 65 is not entitled to the State pension until 66.
86% of the members recommended abolishing mandatory retirement based on age.
88% of the members recommended benchmarking the State pension by reference to average earnings.
100% of the members recommended that the Government should take steps to rationalise private pension schemes to include greater transparency in relation to fees.


----------



## josh8267

PGF2016,
This is one of very few unpopular but prudent decisions made by a government that I'm aware of. It makes perfect sense to increase the retirement age as people live longer and in better health.
[/QUOTE]
Not as prudent as you might think
The done away with the transition year and got people to start  using up there PRSI NOT A VERY GOOD IDEA to cover them up to 66 as a direct result of this prudent decision, the Government were forced to changed the rules so people over 65 can draw there PRSI up to 66, FG are now going to allow this up to the new pension age by the look things

This prudent Government no longer require people from the age of 62 to prove the are looking for work,brought in after the pension age going to 66

I myself started work 1n 1968 paying an Insurance stamp until the 1970s when prsi came in i have most of my payslips going back to when PRSI first started,
Payroll PRSI deductions average close to  20% all of my working life until the USC came in,

The government are killing the goose who is  laying the golder egg,

Expect the goose to stop laying earlier than normal and start enjoying some of the 20% , Seeing the Government put the idea of claiming from there PRSI into there Head

I suspect the poor goose will have a underlying illness and will not feel like laying anymore,


----------



## Deiseblue

MrEarl said:


> Hello,
> 
> This is all very simple - the Government can't afford to cover its obligations to the people of Ireland, hence they pushed the age out for commencement of the oap.
> 
> The population is living longer, so the cost is rising. That's making the problem even worse.
> 
> It's long past time that everyone accepted the reality of this situation, had honest conversions about it, and put alternative arrangements in place - the State should be top of that list btw, and speed up the roll out of a new plan, for future generations of pensioners.
> 
> At the very same time, the State also needs to do away with its exceptionally generous pensions for civil servants (including TDs etc). Sure, they won't like it, will go on strike, protest etc but it's long past time that we all had a reality check here. Ireland doesn't have the money to pay what it has promised, simple as that.


In fairness to public sector employees it should be pointed out that they will not receive any additional OAP after retirement as their occupational pension is integrated with the social welfare pension.
To put matters in some perspective both myself and my wife are both retired from Bank of Ireland and both of us receive occupational pensions from a defined benefit scheme and both of us ameliorated our pension entitlements to avail of tax free capital sums and received the maximum state redundancy payment- all for pension contributions of approximately 1/3rd of those paid by public sector workers + our PRSI contributions.
In addition , if we survive , we can then claim the OAP bringing our combined income to approximately €90,000 annually.
Is this fair ? , should pensioners be means tested before receiving any OAP ?
Naturally I would be very disappointed to lose any portion of the OAP but in the interest of fairness I would reluctantly accept it.
However it would seem I have little to worry about in the light of recent media reports it seems that instead of a cautious approach to the question of pensions the major parties are simply going to kick the can down the road and instead are promising to increase the OAP and possibly reduce the pension availability age.
I think it’s perhaps slightly naive to suggest that the State could continue to function in the face of an all out public sector strike and if there’s anything guaranteed to keep people out for as long as it takes then that is a threat to their pensions.
The reality is that successive Governments have shown that the groups they most fear and are anxious to placated are pensioners and the public sector unions.


----------



## moneymakeover

Indo:

"As the backlash grows over the pension age rise, it has been confirmed that public service employees can retire at the age of 63 and get a supplemental pension until the State pension kicks in at 67.

In contrast, private sector workers who are legally obliged to retire at 65 are unable to claim the State pension until a later date as the State contributory pension is now only paid from the age of 67.

The State (PRSI) pension age is due to go to 68 next year, prompting a scramble by politicians to promise to row back on the plans as the issue comes during on the doorsteps during canvassing in the General Election."


----------



## Deiseblue

It shows either remarkable foresight by the Unions involved who negotiated supplementary pensions back in 1995 or blind luck !


----------



## ashambles

Anyone know what funds supplemental pensions? PRSI fund or coming from overall pay bill for public servants?


----------



## Conan

Public service Pensions and any Supplementary Pension are totally UNFUNDED. They are paid out of general taxation (which partly explains why the "cost" rarely gets any focus).


----------



## michaelm

Do PS workers not make a pension contribution from their wages?  Also, do they not pay the Pension Related Deduction (PRD) - now morphed into the Additional Superannuation Contribution (ASC).  And do they not also pay full PRSI (post '95 anyway) for state benefits, same as everyone else?


----------



## hunter1

moneymakeover said:


> Indo:
> 
> "As the backlash grows over the pension age rise, it has been confirmed that public service employees can retire at the age of 63 and get a supplemental pension until the State pension kicks in at 67.
> 
> In contrast, private sector workers who are legally obliged to retire at 65 are unable to claim the State pension until a later date as the State contributory pension is now only paid from the age of 67.
> 
> The State (PRSI) pension age is due to go to 68 next year, prompting a scramble by politicians to promise to row back on the plans as the issue comes during on the doorsteps during canvassing in the General Election."



PS employees shouldn't need a supplementary pension because they should be receiving their full pension entitlement from their employer.

When they reach state pension age, their full pension entitlement, which is payable by their employer, should be reduced by the rate of the State contributory pension.

It is that simple.


----------



## Allpartied

moneymakeover said:


> Indo:
> 
> "As the backlash grows over the pension age rise, it has been confirmed that public service employees can retire at the age of 63 and get a supplemental pension until the State pension kicks in at 67.
> 
> In contrast, private sector workers who are legally obliged to retire at 65 are unable to claim the State pension until a later date as the State contributory pension is now only paid from the age of 67.
> 
> The State (PRSI) pension age is due to go to 68 next year, prompting a scramble by politicians to promise to row back on the plans as the issue comes during on the doorsteps during canvassing in the General Election."




What's with the 63?  Does that apply to people on the post 2004 scheme?  

As I understand it, the post 95, but pre 2004 PS workers can avail of the Supplementary pension at age 60. 

Most people retiring over the next 10/15 years will be either pre 95 workers or  post 95 workers, but pre 2004 scheme. 

I read the article but can't find any explanation as to why the age 63 is mentioned.


----------



## hunter1

Conan said:


> Public service Pensions and any Supplementary Pension are totally UNFUNDED. They are paid out of general taxation (which partly explains why the "cost" rarely gets any focus).



Exactly and one has to wonder why PS employees are being forced to go on the dole for 9 months and _then_ apply for this payment and all to receive the very same pension that they are entitled to, just like their pre-1995 counterparts.


----------



## Conan

Pre1995 public service hires generally pay B or D PRSI (modified contributions) and do not qualify for a State SW Pension.  Their occupational pension represents their full entitlement. 
Post 1995 hires are generally A PRSI contributors so their occupational pension is reduced by the expectation that they will receive a State SW Pension.  So if they retire at 65 or earlier that's where the Supplementary Pension comes in to bridge the gap to age 66.


----------



## ashambles

Post 95 pay PRSI and get their pension partly funded by the standard oap -through the PRSI fund.
My question would be on the supplemental, ideally that wouldn't be coming from the PRSI fund - in the interest of fairly calculating OAP age on the basis of pressure on that fund.

I believe it isn't coming from the fund, but be good to see something official confirming that.  

A secondary question would be does the government pay employers PRSI for ALL its employees. I'd always assumed it did but back when the government were estimating savings from salary cuts I noticed they weren't including employer's PRSI savings. Possibly just an error, but suspicious.


----------



## Early Riser

Allpartied said:


> What's with the 63? Does that apply to people on the post 2004 scheme?



No, post 2004 entrants may qualify for a supplementary pension at 65 at the earliest (they would have to apply for, and exhaust, JB first). There is no rationale for 63.


----------



## Early Riser

PS supplementary pensions do not come from the PRSI fund.

And, just to note, there will be no supplementary pension for post 2013 entrants (Single Scheme).


----------



## hunter1

Conan said:


> Pre1995 public service hires generally pay B or D PRSI (modified contributions) and do not qualify for a State SW Pension.  Their occupational pension represents their full entitlement.
> Post 1995 hires are generally A PRSI contributors so their occupational pension is reduced by the expectation that they will receive a State SW Pension.  So if they retire at 65 or earlier *that's where the Supplementary Pension comes in to bridge the gap to age 66*.



I have to disagree with you because as Deiseblue very astutely points out:

*"It shows either remarkable foresight by the Unions involved who negotiated supplementary pensions back in 1995 or blind luck !"*

The supplementary pension goes back to 1995, when the pension age was 65, it was not created for this purpose.

Just add here that the mechanism for bridging the gap, according to many,  from 65 to 66, was introduced years before the gap existed.


----------



## Threadser

Post 95 PS workers pay considerably more towards the portion of their pension that comprises the state pension. They pay A rate PRSI and a significant pension contribution (circa 14% of salary.) This is often ignored in the media when they try to whip up another backlash against PS workers.


----------



## Nordkapp

moneymakeover said:


> I see noises in the news about the anger people feel about the increase in age for retirement with 67 becoming the age for receipt of state pension from 2021
> 
> and by 2028 to be 68
> 
> Is it at all likely these plans will be postponed : is there enough public opinion to sway the decision?
> 
> I mention this particularly in light of the upcoming general election


 the anger is now real........It is a serious blow to FG chances to stay in power to maintain their stance on increasing the State Pension age. The Supp pension has been a particular bug bear of mine for some years and raised with the Pensions Ombudsman.


----------



## Nordkapp

Conan said:


> And our State Pension is significantly higher than in the UK/NI.



This is one seriously expensive country to live in compared to the UK


----------



## Nordkapp

hunter1 said:


> Exactly and one has to wonder why PS employees are being forced to go on the dole for 9 months and _then_ apply for this payment and all to receive the very same pension that they are entitled to, just like their pre-1995 counterparts.



Forcing retirees to seek Jobseekers allowance distorts the true number of those at working age seeking the allowance.  Pre 95 retirees can waltz off into the sunset with their pensions, post 95 retirees have put up with using UB and then Jobseekers allowance for a number of years before the State Pension is available. If there is such a crisis, then stop all new entrants getting a DB pension and start them on a DC.


----------



## Nordkapp

Amazed it has taken this election to raise the Supp Pension issue, watching the outcome of this with great interest


----------



## hunter1

Nordkapp said:


> Forcing retirees to seek Jobseekers allowance distorts the true number of those at working age seeking the allowance.  Pre 95 retirees can waltz off into the sunset with their pensions, post 95 retirees have put up with using UB and then Jobseekers allowance for a number of years before the State Pension is available. If there is such a crisis, then stop all new entrants getting a DB pension and start them on a DC.



It's completely ludicrous. I recently discovered that this is what I have to do - when I retire. Why would I sign on the dole and make myself available for work to get part of my retirement pension? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## Nordkapp

@hunter1, back in 2014 Howlin, to force PS employees out in their 50's, dangled the redundancy carrot and raided the pension pot to get PS to retire early. Most of these are now early 60's and utilising the Supp Pensions to top up the pension until the State Pension is available.

Its farcical, Dept of Public Reform brought in the Supp rule requirement, Social welfare have to pay it and vet the claimants for unemployment assistance. Raises the cost for Social Welfare.......


----------



## hunter1

Nordkapp said:


> @hunter1, back in 2014 Howlin, to force PS employees out in their 50's, dangled the redundancy carrot and raided the pension pot to get PS to retire early. Most of these are now early 60's and utilising the Supp Pensions to top up the pension until the State Pension is available.
> 
> Its farcical, Dept of Public Reform brought in the Supp rule requirement, Social welfare have to pay it and vet the claimants for unemployment assistance. Raises the cost for Social Welfare.......



As I just commented on another thread, this "supplementary" pension, which allegedly is there to bridge the gap between the new pension age of 66 from 65, was actually created back in 1995, when no such gap existed. It was clearly not designed for this purpose.

I tracked it back, the entire system is a joke and each time the rate of the state pension increases, our occupational pension decreases, so we are left, bizarrely, more dependent on the State Old age pension that we cannot be entitled to because of our age, to make up our "retirement" pension.


----------



## josh8267

We seen what happened to labour when the got found out letting down there own
Interesting to see will FG follow them,having let down the people who got up in the morning and went to work for up to fifty years,


----------



## Early Riser

Nordkapp said:


> Its farcical, Dept of Public Reform brought in the Supp rule requirement, Social welfare have to pay it and vet the claimants for unemployment assistance. Raises the cost for Social Welfare......



That is not quite accurate. The Supplementary Pension was introduced in 1999, which was well before their was a Dept of Public Expenditure and Reform ( see Circular S 10/99 :[broken link removed]). It followed from the transfer of all public servants to Class A PRSI in 1995.

Also, Social Welfare do not process or pay Supplementary Pensions for retired public servants. They only process applications for standard Social Welfare payments. In the case of Class A public servants retiring before State Pension age, this would normally be for Jobseekers Benefit. A retiree must exhaust this first before applying to their former employer's pension/pay office for a Supplementary Pension. The only role for Social Welfare is to confirm that the person is no longer eligible for a Social Welfare payment (and why).


----------



## galway_blow_in

Nordkapp said:


> This is one seriously expensive country to live in compared to the UK



It's no more expensive than the UK


----------



## Nordkapp

@hunter1, interesting. To get PS to "go early" Supp was used. If no Supp pension you would be "going early" only if you have to. Personally want Supp gone and the disparity or reduction in the occupational pension sorted out. They are putting huge doubt in PS minds to the extent that some will not contemplate retiring as each Government continually changes the goal posts


----------



## Early Riser

hunter1 said:


> As I just commented on another thread, this "supplementary" pension, which allegedly is there to bridge the gap between the new pension age of 66 from 65, was actually created back in 1995, when no such gap existed. It was clearly not designed for this purpose.



Not so. The Supplementary Pension was introduced to bridge the gap between normal retirement (at any time from 60) until the payment age for a Social Welfare (State) pension. Back then that payment age was at 65, it is now 66 and will soon be 67. After 2004 the retirement age for new PS entrants was raised to 65, so for these retireees there is no possible eligibility for a Supplementary Pension before 65.


----------



## Nordkapp

galway_blow_in said:


> It's no more expensive than the UK



They have free health care, we pay for everything. Their 20% tax rate stops at £50k (€60K), Give me a pension of that and I would be sitting on a beach drinking tequila.


----------



## galway_blow_in

Nordkapp said:


> They have free health care, we pay for everything. Their 20% tax rate stops at £50k (€60K), Give me a pension of that and I would be sitting on a beach drinking tequila.



Sorry, thought this thread was about those who have retired, we also have free health care for pensioners


----------



## hunter1

Early Riser said:


> That is not quite accurate.* The Supplementary Pension was introduced in 1999,* which was well before their was a Dept of Public Expenditure and Reform ( see Circular S 10/99 :[broken link removed]). It followed from the transfer of all public servants to Class A PRSI in 1995.
> 
> Also, Social Welfare do not process or pay Supplementary Pensions for retired public servants. They only process applications for standard Social Welfare payments. In the case of Class A public servants retiring before State Pension age, this would normally be for Jobseekers Benefit. A retiree must exhaust this first before applying to their former employer's pension/pay office for a Supplementary Pension. The only role for Social Welfare is to confirm that the person is no longer eligible for a Social Welfare payment (and why).



No it wasn't.  It was introduced on the 11th March 1995, and even if it was, it was still years earlier than when the gap existed.


----------



## hunter1

Nordkapp said:


> @hunter1, interesting. To get PS to "go early" Supp was used. If no Supp pension you would be "going early" only if you have to. Personally want Supp gone and the disparity or reduction in the occupational pension sorted out. They are putting huge doubt in PS minds to the extent that some will not contemplate retiring as each Government continually changes the goal posts



But we are not going early, we're going when they tell us to go, either at 65, or in my case, 60.


----------



## Early Riser

hunter1 said:


> No it wasn't.  It was introduced on the 11th March 1995, and even if it was, it was still years earlier than when the gap existed.



The gap existed as soon as all public servants entrants were changed to Class A PRSI and placed on "cooordinated" pensions, ie. 1995. The retirement age was left at 60. So there was a "gap" until a state pension eligibility (then 65). The Circular setting out how the Suppplementary would operate and eligibility criteria is linked in the post above.


----------



## Early Riser

hunter1 said:


> But we are not going early, we're going when they tell us to go, either at 65, or in my case, 60.



As we know from another thread you are in a different situation from the majority of post 1995 public servants. The majority do not have to go at 60 - they can go at 60 (without actuarial reduction on benefits accrued) or they can stay on. As I understand it, your sector has compulsory retirement at 60 which is a differnet scenario.


----------



## Conan

hunter1 said:


> It's completely ludicrous. I recently discovered that this is what I have to do - when I retire. Why would I sign on the dole and make myself available for work to get part of my retirement pension? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


If you are aged 62 or older when claiming JB, you DO NOT have to make yourself available for work. The recent articles in the IT, the Indo and on the Journal are all misleading in this regard. Furthermore if you claim JB at age 65, you get paid for the 12 months up to age 66. Again the articles mentioned earlier are misleading in this regard also.


----------



## hunter1

Early Riser said:


> As we know from another thread you are in a different situation from the majority of post 1995 public servants. The majority do not have to go at 60 - they can go at 60 (without actuarial reduction on benefits accrued) or they can stay on. As I understand it, your sector has compulsory retirement at 60 which is a differnet scenario.



I have to admit to being somewhat confused, maybe you can explain the retirement ages to me.


----------



## hunter1

Conan said:


> If you are aged 62 or older when claiming JB, you DO NOT have to make yourself available for work. The recent articles in the IT, the Indo and on the Journal are all misleading in this regard. Furthermore if you claim JB at age 65, you get paid for the 12 months up to age 66. Again the articles mentioned earlier are misleading in this regard also.



The problem is, I will be 60.


----------



## G123

Saw a bit of the Tonight Show just now. It looks like pre-election jitters means that all parties are now promising full pensions for everyone, under one guise or another, from age 65.


----------



## Early Riser

hunter1 said:


> I have to admit to being somewhat confused, maybe you can explain the retirement ages to me.


 
For the majority of the public service, workers who joined before 2004 have the option of taking normal retirement from 60. By "normal" I mean that they can get a pension based on their years served without any actuarial reduction. However, they do not have to retire at 60 and very many don't for a variety of reasons. Some just prefer to continue working. Most probably won't have the full 40 years service by 60, which they require for a full pension. Many prefer a full salary to a pension in any event. It used to be that these PSs had to retire at 65 but they now have the option to continue.

Certain categories of worker have an earlier, compulsory retirement age, eg, 60. I think Gardai, Prison Officers and some others. This is not the norm.

For post 2004 entrants to the general public service, the age for normal retirement was raised from 60 to 65. From 2013, entrants to the Single Scheme have the retirement age tied to the State Pension age (eg, it will be 67 from 2021 and 68 from 2028). Again people in special categories, such as yours, have different arrangemments.

The Supplementary Pension was introduced to fill the gap for Class A PRSI retireees on coordinated pensions who were entitled to take normal retirement before the State Pension age (either 60 or 65) and who did not qualify for any other Social Welfare payment in the meantime.


----------



## moneymakeover

Rather than the issue being to ensure public servants are allowed to continue working after age 65 as mentioned earlier I think the issue for me is why the private sector will only be getting state pension after age 66,67,68 while public servants can retire age 64 and get the state pension (supplementary)

Independent:
"*public servants get* a "supplementary *pension*" before they *can* qualify for the *State* contributory *pension* at 66. ... *Public Servants* are *getting* a full supplementary *pension* payment even in cases where they *do* not have sufficient PRSI contributions to give them the maximum *State pension*.Nov 13, 2017"


----------



## hunter1

Early Riser said:


> For the majority of the public service, workers who joined before 2004 have the option of taking normal retirement from 60. By "normal" I mean that they can get a pension based on their years served without any actuarial reduction. However, they do not have to retire at 60 and very many don't for a variety of reasons. Some just prefer to continue working. Most probably won't have the full 40 years service by 60, which they require for a full pension. Many prefer a full salary to a pension in any event. It used to be that these PSs had to retire at 65 but they now have the option to continue.
> 
> Certain categories of worker have an earlier, compulsory retirement age, eg, 60. I think Gardai, Prison Officers and some others. This is not the norm.
> 
> For post 2004 entrants to the general public service, the age for normal retirement was raised from 60 to 65. From 2013, entrants to the Single Scheme have the retirement age tied to the State Pension age (eg, it will be 67 from 2021 and 68 from 2028). Again people in special categories, such as yours, have different arrangemments.
> 
> *The Supplementary Pension was introduced to fill the gap for Class A PRSI *retireees on coordinated pensions who were entitled to take normal retirement before the State Pension age (either 60 or 65) and *who did not qualify for any other Social Welfare payment in the meantim*e.



If we're required to sign on the dole, regardless of whether our retirement age is 60 or 65, then clearly we do qualify for a social welfare payment. 

It doesn't make any sense, it's completely illogical to ask people who are retiring to sign on the dole from the social welfare department and then revert back to our employing department for the supplementary pension.


----------



## hunter1

According to Charlie Weston this morning:









						Charlie Weston: 'Private sector workers are hung out to dry as taxpayers left to fund unfair gold-plated system'
					

You have to admire public servants. The biggest issue in the election so far is the State pension age being raised. Yet our public servants managed to insulate themselves from this costly change.




					www.independent.ie
				




_"Take a public servant on €80,000, retiring after 40 years at age 64.

Her public service pension is worked out at €27,045 a year. When this is added to the State pension of €12,956 gives her a 50pc final salary pension, according to calculations by pensions expert Tony Gilhawley of Technical Guidance.

But she won't get the State pension until she is 67.

*Provided she is not working, her public service employer will pay her a 'supplementary pension' of €12,956 a year between retirement at 64 and State pension age at 67.

In effect she will get the State pension immediately except that for the first three years it's paid by her employer as a supplementary pension."*_

But from what I have been reading on this site from other Garda as well as ourselves, this is not the case because we have been advised that we have to first sign on the dole for 9 months (leaving us with a shortfall of the difference between JSB and the State pension) and then apply for the supplementary pension from our own department.

Now what Charlie is saying makes much more sense in a way, where it ceases to make sense is why, when we are entitled to half our salary from our employer on retirement, that part of this is classed as a "supplement", we're not asking for or getting any more than the 50% that is our pension package.


----------



## Early Riser

moneymakeover said:


> Rather than the issue being to ensure public servants are allowed to continue working after age 65 as mentioned earlier I think the issue for me is why the private sector will only be getting state pension after age 66,67,68 while public servants can retire age 64 and get the state pension (supplementary)
> 
> Independent:
> "*public servants get* a "supplementary *pension*" before they *can* qualify for the *State* contributory *pension* at 66. ... *Public Servants* are *getting* a full supplementary *pension* payment even in cases where they *do* not have sufficient PRSI contributions to give them the maximum *State pension*.Nov 13, 2017"




The media reports are somewhat misleading. Firstly, no public servant gets the State Pension before state pension age. Secondly, some public servants qualify for a supplementary pension from their former employer but have to meet certain conditions.

Public servants who joined before 1995 get no state pension at all, at any age, because they have paid Class D PRSI. Nor do they get any suppplementary pension. (There are a small number of exceptions to this as a few circumscribed sectors had Class A PRSI pension schemes prior to 1995). These retirees get a pension directly related to their years of service (provided they are retiring after age 60). So someone with 30 years service retiring on a pensionable salary of €48,000 will get an Occupational Pension of €18,000 (ie, 30/80). The state pension or the supplementary pension never comes into it.

In 1995 public servants new entrants were moved to (higher) Class A PRSI and put on a new pension scheme in which benefits were coordinated with Social Welfare. So if a person on this scheme retires after 60 from the same job and in the same circumstances as above (ie, 30 years of service and a pensionable salary of €48,000) they will get an Occupational Pension of about €8,400 - that is €9,600 less than their previous colleague. They can apply for a Supplementary Pension (of €9,600) to make up for this difference provided they are not eligible for any Social Welfare payment. So in this situation the person must first apply for Jobseekers Benefit. It is only when this is exhausted that they will become eligible for the supplementary payment. And they must meet another condition - they cannot be employed, or self-employed, in any position which is liable to PRSI. Note that the Supplementary in this situation amounts to €9,600 and not the equivalent of the State Pension. It is always calculated so as to bring the pension in payment up to the same level as the previous Class D colleague (the rationale was that they would not be disadvantaged relative to their colleagues on Class D).

In 2004 the minimum age for normal retirement was raised to 65 for all new entrants. A retiree from this scheme could not be eligible for a supplementary pension before age 65. But they would have to apply for Jobseekers before becoming eligible and, as this is now payable for 12 months for over 65s, they would likely reach State Pension age without becoming eligible for a supplementary. As it stands now, they would be eligible for a supplementary for a year when the State Pension age rises to 67.

There is no supplementary eligibility any more for entrants since 2013.


----------



## hunter1

Early Riser said:


> The media reports are somewhat misleading. Firstly, no public servant gets the State Pension before state pension age. Secondly, some public servants qualify for a supplementary pension from their former employer but have to meet certain conditions.
> 
> Public servants who joined before 1995 get no state pension at all, at any age, because they have paid Class D PRSI. Nor do they get any suppplementary pension. (There are a small number of exceptions to this as a few circumscribed sectors had Class A PRSI pension schemes prior to 1995). These retirees get a pension directly related to their years of service (provided they are retiring after age 60). So someone with 30 years service retiring on a pensionable salary of €48,000 will get an Occupational Pension of €18,000 (ie, 30/80). The state pension or the supplementary pension never comes into it.
> 
> In 1995 public servants new entrants were moved to (higher) Class A PRSI and put on a new pension scheme in which benefits were coordinated with Social Welfare. So if a person on this scheme retires after 60 from the same job and in the same circumstances as above (ie, 30 years of service and a pensionable salary of €48,000) they will get an *Occupational Pension of about €8,400 *- that is €9,600 less than their previous colleague. They can apply for a Supplementary Pension (of €9,600) to make up for this difference provided they are not eligible for any Social Welfare payment. So in this situation the person must first apply for Jobseekers Benefit. It is only when this is exhausted that they will become eligible for the supplementary payment. And they must meet another condition - they cannot be employed, or self-employed, in any position which is liable to PRSI. Note that the Supplementary in this situation amounts to €9,600 and not the equivalent of the State Pension. It is always calculated so as to bring the pension in payment up to the same level as the previous Class D colleague (the rationale was that they would not be disadvantaged relative to their colleagues on Class D).
> 
> In 2004 the minimum age for normal retirement was raised to 65 for all new entrants. A retiree from this scheme could not be eligible for a supplementary pension before age 65. But they would have to apply for Jobseekers before becoming eligible and, as this is now payable for 12 months for over 65s, they would likely reach State Pension age without becoming eligible for a supplementary.
> 
> There is no supplementary eligibility any more for entrants since 2013.



How did you calculate the highlighted pension?

According to the CS pension modeller

Pensionable Service to date
Service from today to retirement30 Years and 0 Days


_"You would also receive a pension of *€11,305*. Your pension would be paid in arrears on a fortnightly basis.  Based on your Class A Social Welfare status, you may also be entitled to a Social Welfare contributory Old Age Pension from age 66, currently *€12,695.39* per annum.  If through no fault of your own you fail to qualify for a Social Welfare benefit, you may be entitled to a supplementary pension."_

I think I see your error:

_" It is always calculated so as to bring the pension in payment* up to the same level *as the previous Class D colleague (the rationale was that they would not be disadvantaged relative to their colleagues on Class D). "_

The "level" is the "30/80ths", not the 18,000 and when you calculate the pension for us, then our 30/80ths is worth more than the pre-1995 employee and that is because we contributed more by way of pension-related deductions, personal contributions and full PRSI contributions.


----------



## Early Riser

hunter1 said:


> "You would also receive a pension of *€11,305*. Your pension would be paid in arrears on a fortnightly basis. Based on your Class A Social Welfare status, you may also be entitled to a Social Welfare contributory Old Age Pension from age 66, currently *€12,695.39* per annum. If through no fault of your own you fail to qualify for a Social Welfare benefit, you may be entitled to a supplementary pension."



Hunter, your figure for the pension is correct for someone in your sector, ie Gardai, Prison Officers, etc who qualify for full pensions after 30 years of service. That is not the norm in the public service, where 40 years of service is required for a full pension. That is what my example is based on.

The Supplementary Pension may in some circumstances equal the State Pension. This would be for someone who qualifies for a full pension (ie, 30 years in your case, 40 years more generally). In each individual case, though, it is always calculated as the difference between the Class A Occupational Pension in payment and what an equivalent Class D pensioner would get in the same circumstances. Hence the figure for the Supplementary in my example.


----------



## hunter1

Early Riser said:


> Hunter, your figure for the pension is correct for someone in your sector, ie Gardai, Prison Officers, etc who qualify for full pensions after 30 years of service. That is not the norm in the public service, where 40 years of service is required for a full pension. That is what my example is based on.
> 
> The Supplementary Pension may in some circumstances equal the State Pension. This would be for someone who qualifies for a full pension (ie, 30 years in your case, 40 years more generally). In each individual case, though, it is always calculated as the difference between the Class A Occupational Pension in payment and what an equivalent Class D pensioner would get in the same circumstances. Hence the figure for the Supplementary in my example.



That figure isn't the pension for prison officers, I didn't use that model I used the normal CS one.

* EDIT - I used 30 years service, not 40 years, which is exactly the example you used and the figure is different.

We qualify with 30 years of time served, but we pay 40 years of contributions.

I get what you're trying to say and I get that each individual circumstances are different, but isn't what stays the same is how the pension is calculated.

How did you calculate this pension?

_ "(ie, 30 years of service and a pensionable salary of €48,000) they will get an *Occupational Pension of about €8,400 * "_

Is there a different model/formula? Can you link me to it please. 

EDIT. Look sorry for annoying you and thanks for the help.


----------



## Early Riser

hunter1 said:


> *We qualify with 30 years of time served, b*ut we pay 40 years of contributions



Hunter, As previously noted your pension is different to the general public service pension. And for your pension your figures look correct.

However, in my example, I am looking at regular public service pensions. How I got the figure was as a rough calculation. But here is the fuller version for a post-1995 Class A PS retiring with 30 years of service on a salary of €48,000:

€43,032 * 30/200 = €6455
€4968    * 30/80  = €1863

*€6455 + €1863  = €8318  = Pension*

Here is the formula described:

*"Pension Calculation for staff recruited after 5 April  1995:*

_The method of calculating Main Scheme pension for officers recruited on or after 6 April 1995 who qualify for benefits on or after 1 January 2004 is:
(a)For that part of the officer’s pensionable remuneration which is less than or equal to 3 1/3 times the current rate of CSP, 1/200th of pensionable remuneration multiplied by the number of years of reckonable service plus  
(b)   For any part of the officer’s Pensionable Remuneration which exceeds 3 1/3times CSP,  1/80th of pensionable remuneration multiplied by the number of years of reckonable service. 
A multiplier of 3.333333 (i.e. 6 decimal places) is used to calculate 31/3 times CSP.

The maximum number of years of reckonable service is 40.The CSP rate is the maximum Contributory State Pension."_

See 11.8 here: http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/SuperannuationHandbookandGuidanceDec20061.pdf


Or for a simpler estimate, use the modeller for "Established Civil Servants recruited after 1st April 1995" for 30 years of service and a salary of €48,000 (It probably won't be exactly right as it depends on the Modeller having been updated to the current rate of State Pension - it is usually a bit behind the times).

*But  But But - this is not your situation. The terms of your pension scheme are different!*


----------



## hunter1

Early Riser said:


> Hunter, As previously noted your pension is different to the general public service pension. And for your pension your figures look correct.
> 
> However, in my example, I am looking at regular public service pensions. How I got the figure was as a rough calculation. But here is the fuller version for a post-1995 Class A PS retiring with 30 years of service on a salary of €48,000:
> 
> €43,032 * 30/200 = €6455
> €4968    * 30/80  = €1863
> 
> *€6455 + €1863  = €8318  = Pension*
> 
> Here is the formula described:
> 
> *"Pension Calculation for staff recruited after 5 April  1995:*
> 
> _The method of calculating Main Scheme pension for officers recruited on or after 6 April 1995 who qualify for benefits on or after 1 January 2004 is:
> (a)For that part of the officer’s pensionable remuneration which is less than or equal to 3 1/3 times the current rate of CSP, 1/200th of pensionable remuneration multiplied by the number of years of reckonable service plus
> (b)   For any part of the officer’s Pensionable Remuneration which exceeds 3 1/3times CSP,  1/80th of pensionable remuneration multiplied by the number of years of reckonable service.
> A multiplier of 3.333333 (i.e. 6 decimal places) is used to calculate 31/3 times CSP.
> 
> The maximum number of years of reckonable service is 40.The CSP rate is the maximum Contributory State Pension."_
> 
> See 11.8 here: http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/SuperannuationHandbookandGuidanceDec20061.pdf
> 
> 
> Or for a simpler estimate, use the modeller for "Established Civil Servants recruited after 1st April 1995" for 30 years of service and a salary of €48,000 (It probably won't be exactly right as it depends on the Modeller having been updated to the current rate of State Pension - it is usually a bit behind the times).
> 
> *But  But But - this is not your situation. The terms of your pension scheme are different!*



Great stuff, thanks a million. I'll have to sit and study that formula, I have seen it before but I've never sat and worked it out before. 

Regarding the terms of our scheme, the only difference (as far as I am aware), is our retirement age, as I said, we still make 40 years of contributions and our pension is 50% or 40/80ths, even though we only serve 30 years.


----------



## hunter1

Actually, would you believe this:









						Transitional payment for retirees at same rate as State pension to avoid anomaly confirmed
					

TAOISEACH Leo Varadkar has said Fine Gael plans to introduce a transition payment at the same rate as the State pension to avoid people having to apply for the dole when they retire.




					www.independent.ie
				




_"TAOISEACH Leo Varadkar has said Fine Gael plans to introduce a transition payment at the same rate as the State pension to avoid people having to apply for the dole when they retire.
Mr Varadkar was responding to growing disquiet among voters over the government’s plan to raise the retirement age to 67 next year. This will force some workers whose contracts require them to retire at 65 or 66 to apply for jobseekers’ allowance, which is lower than the State pension."_

That should apply to us too.


----------



## Early Riser

hunter1 said:


> Regarding the terms of our scheme, the only difference (as far as I am aware), is our retirement age, as I said, we still make 40 years of contributions and our pension is 50% or 40/80ths, even though we only serve 30 years.



  I am really not familiar with your scheme but I think this is correct. Using the same formula but applying 40 years of service instead of 30 (as per your scheme) gives an Occupational Pension of €11,090. This is close to your estimate from the Modeller - the difference is probably due to the Modeller being set to a slightly out of date State Pension figure.


----------



## nad

These haven't too much to worry about as regards their pension.


----------



## hunter1

Early Riser said:


> I am really not familiar with your scheme but I think this is correct. Using the same formula but applying 40 years of service instead of 30 (as per your scheme) gives an Occupational Pension of €11,090. This is close to your estimate from the Modeller - the difference is probably due to the Modeller being set to a slightly out of date State Pension figure.



Okay thanks a million, but this still doesn't look right:

"60 from the same job and in the same circumstances as above *(ie, 30 years of service and a pensionable salary of €48,000)* they will get an *Occupational Pension of about €8,400 *-* that is €9,600 less than their previous colleague*.* They can apply for a Supplementary Pension (of €9,600) *to make up for this difference provided they are not eligible for any Social Welfare payment.

You're calculating the post-1995's 30/80ths the same way as the pre-1995's 30/80ths was calculated and it was calculated as follows:

24,000/40/x30 = 18,000.

Using the formula you linked for the post 1995 employee with 30 (not 40) years whose pension is now integrated with the State pension:

State pension is 248.30 x 52 = *12,911.60*
  x 3.333333 = 43038.66

1/200th is 215.19 x 30 years = *6,455.70*

4,961.34 = 1/80th = 62.01 x 30 = *1,860.30*

Occupational pension - *8,316*

If this employee, who has only served 30 of the 40 years service, but has paid the* required PRSI contributions*, then they are entitled to the rate of the State pension of 12,911.60, which is what it says on the modeler, although they cannot access until they are that age.

So while the pre-1995 employee's *30/80th*s is *18,000,* the post-1995's *30/80ths* is *21227.60.*

Providing that the post-1995 staff who will not retire on full service have their PRSI contributions paid, then the supplementary pension should always be the rate of the state pension.


----------



## Early Riser

hunter1 said:


> If this employee, who has only served 30 of the 40 years service, but has paid the* required PRSI contributions*, then they are entitled to the rate of the State pension of 12,911.60, which is what it says on the modeler, although they cannot access until they are that age.
> 
> So while the pre-1995 employee's *30/80th*s is *18,000,* the post-1995's *30/80ths* is *21227.60.*



That is not correct. The modeller states that you *may* be entitled to state pension based on your PRSI record. When you get to State Pension age the Dept of Social Welfare will determine what you qualify for, based on your full record (both within the public service - and without, if applicable). The modeller does not state that you *will* get a State Pension - or what level of State Pnsion you will qualify for. For example, if you use the modeller to calculate the pension for someone who has just 3 years of service it will state the same thing. But clearly 3 years of PRSI will not qualify someone for the State Pension (they might qualify if they have significant additional private sector PRSI, but that is a different matter). The modeller does not say the level of Supplementary Pension for the individual, just that you may be entitled to one.

For a standard post- 95er with 30 years service and a salary of €48,000, they qualify for an Occ Pension of €8,316. If they meet the criteria for a Supplementary Pension it would amount to €9684 (ie 18,000 - 8316) to bring them up to the level of an equivalent Class D. When they get to State Pension age the Dept Of Social Welfare will determine what level of State Pension they will get - based on their *total *record.

If this person was in your pension scheme they would get an Occ Pension of about €11090 and, if eligible, a Supplementary of €12,910 (24000 -11090), as the equivalent Class D in your situation would get €24k. In your case the value of the Supplementary equates to that of the State Pension.


----------



## Conan

nad said:


> These haven't too much to worry about as regards their pension.
> 
> 
> View attachment 4234


Where did the capital values come from. They don't look correct. E Kenny and C O'Caolain have similar benefits but very different capital values???
As an approx capital value you could assume a multiple of say 35 times the Pension plus the lump sum
Worth bearing in mind that someone getting a full State Pension (plus Qualified Adult Dependents Pension) of c€25,000, this has a capital value of c€750,000.


----------



## hunter1

Early Riser said:


> *That is not correct. The modeller states that you may be entitled to state pension based on your PRSI record*. When you get to State Pension age the Dept of Social Welfare will determine what you qualify for, based on your full record (both within the public service - and without, if applicable). The modeller does not state that you *will* get a State Pension - or what level of State Pnsion you will qualify for. For example, if you use the modeller to calculate the pension for someone who has just 3 years of service it will state the same thing. But clearly 3 years of PRSI will not qualify someone for the State Pension (they might qualify if they have significant additional private sector PRSI, but that is a different matter). The modeller does not say the level of Supplementary Pension for the individual, just that you may be entitled to one.
> 
> *For a standard post- 95er with 30 years service and a salary of €48,000, they qualify for an Occ Pension of €8,316. If they meet the criteria for a Supplementary Pension it would amount to €9684 (ie 18,000 - 8316)* to bring them up to the level of an equivalent Class D. When they get to State Pension age the Dept Of Social Welfare will determine what level of State Pension they will get - based on their *total *record.
> 
> If this person was in your pension scheme they would get an Occ Pension of about €11090 and, if eligible, a Supplementary of €12,910 (24000 -11090), as the equivalent Class D in your situation would get €24k. In your case the value of the Supplementary equates to that of the State Pension.



Which is what I said in my post.

_*"If this employee, who has only served 30 of the 40 years service*, *but has paid the required PRSI contributions*, then they are entitled to the rate of the State pension of 12,911.60, which is what it says on the modeler, although they cannot access until they are that age. ....

*Providing that the post-1995 staff who will not retire on full service have their PRSI contributions paid* "_

I believe that you're incorrect, because you are basing the post 95 pension entitlement as 18k, which was calculated using the old method for the pre 95er, the entitlement is not 18k, it's 30/80ths and that is more than 18k, because we paid PRSI stamp and the pension formula is based on the rate of the state pension.

Thanks for your information, I do appreciate it, we will have to disagree on this one.

Just to add this:









						Most public servants who retire early escape financial impact of increase to State pension age
					

The majority of public servants are not affected by the increase to the State pension age, it has emerged.




					www.independent.ie
				




_"Pensions expert Tony Gilhawley, of Technical Guidance, said:* "Public servants who joined between April 6, 1995 and January 1, 2013 (*the majority of the current public service workforce) who are entitled to the State pension, can be paid a 'supplementary pension' by the State if they retire before the State pension age to make up for not getting the State pension until later."

He said it was unfair that a public service employee who retires at, say, 63 *can get a top up or 'supplementary' pension from the State equal to the State pension between 63 and 67 if they don't work."*_


----------



## Early Riser

hunter1 said:


> "If this employee, who has only served 30 of the 40 years service, but has paid the required PRSI contributions, *then they are entitled to the rate of the State pension of 12,911.60, which is what it says on the modeler*, although they cannot access until they are that age. ....


 Hunter, You are simply mistaken in this - it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeeing. 

It does not say on the modeller that they *are* entitled to the rate of State Pension. Instead, it says _"Based on your Class A Social Welfare status, you *may* also be entitled to a Social Welfare contributory Old Age Pension from age 66._" This is a standard statement on the modeller and is not related to the individual's PRSI record. The modeller does not "know" the person's PRSI record. Only the actual pension figures (Occupational pension and Lump Sum) are individualised. 

For example, I just put in an estimate for an individual with *2* years service - it gave an occ pension estimate of €566 pa but the same standard line was also included that  _"Based on your Class A Social Welfare status, you may also be entitled to a Social Welfare contributory Old Age Pension from age 66, currently *€12,695.39* per annum"_. Noone gets a State pension based on 2 years PRSI - but they *may* get it based on their full PRSI record (which the modeller knows nothing about). Or they may not get a full State Pension - or any State Pension at all.




hunter1 said:


> He said it was unfair that a public service employee who retires at, say, 63 *can get a top up or 'supplementary' pension from the State equal to the State pension between 63 and 67 if they don't work."*



 Yes, certain retired PSs *can* get a supplementary pension equal to the value of the State Pension. But only if they have 40 years service (for a standard public service scheme) or 30 years service for a scheme like yours. If they have less than full pensionable service the Supplementary  will be less than this. (The above example would apply to a post 1995 but pre-2004 entrant).

Anyway, enjoyable as this exploration has been, I think we have exhausted it. I certainly have from my side. 

Good luck with the pension journey !


----------



## hunter1

We are both saying the same thing, the state pension entitlement is dependent on the PRSI record that's not where I disagree with you.

This is where I disagree:

_"Public servants who joined before 1995 get no state pension at all, at any age, because they have paid Class D PRSI. Nor do they get any suppplementary pension. (There are a small number of exceptions to this as a few circumscribed sectors had Class A PRSI pension schemes prior to 1995). These retirees get a pension directly related to their years of service (provided they are retiring after age 60). *So someone with 30 years service retiring on a pensionable salary of €48,000 will get an Occupational Pension of €18,000 (ie, 30/80). *The state pension or the supplementary pension never comes into it.

In 1995 public servants new entrants were moved to (higher) Class A PRSI and put on a new pension scheme in *which benefits were coordinated with Social Welfare*. *So if a person on this scheme retires after 60 from the same job and in the same circumstances as above (ie, 30 years of service and a pensionable salary of €48,000) they will get an Occupational Pension of about €8,400 - that is €9,600 less than their previous colleague."*_ 

You are saying that the pension entitlement of the post 95er on a salary of 48k, with 30 years service, is the same pension entitlement of *18k* as their pre95er colleague, I disagree with you.

I was sent this pension calculation by someone who is retired on medical grounds, she received it prior to her retirement so it's a couple of years old, she received a couple of added years to bring her up to 20 years, a half pension.

*"IHR 20 years no doubled up years.*

_Final reckonable salary - 40,908 plus 19,000 =*59,980

Annual Pension *

40057 by 20/200 equals *4005.70*

19923 by 20/80 equals  *4980.75*

State pension is *12017* payable at 66 *but in the interim disability benefit and/or supplementary pension should be payable

Total pension = 21,003*__"_

She does receive disability benefit which is lower than the rate of the state pension *and *she receives the supplementary pension which brought her up to her total pension package of *21,003.*

If a pre 1995er was retiring with 20 years service on 59980, then the maximum pension entitlement with full service would be 29,980, under the old calculation, the entitlement of 20/80th was calculated as follows:

*29,980x40/20 = 14,990*

Now here's where I disagree with you, because if we say that her benefit would have been the same as the pre 1995er (20/80ths 14,990), the calculation above shows that her occupational pension is *8,985.75* and at the time I think the disability benefit was about 220 a week or 11.440 a year, which brings her up to *20,425.75*, which is still more than 14,990.

I don't want to appear argumentative and I know that you're very well up on pensions, but I do believe that in relation to post 1995 benefits that you are wrong because you are comparing them to pre 1995 pensions (those with less than full service) that were calculated using the old method, when our pensions are calculated using the new method because our PRSI benefits are integrated into our final pension package.

Edit, even if we were to use the figures above for someone retiring with only 20 years service, their occupational pension is 8985.75 and if they were to sign on for JSB which is say 220 or 11,440, the calculation would look the same, while the pre95er would be entitled to 14,990, the occupational pension and JSB would bring the post 1995er up to 20,425.75. 

The post 95 30/80ths is calculated like this:

State pension is 248.30 x 52 = *12,911.60*
x 3.333333 = 43038.66

1/200th is 215.19 x 30 years = *6,455.70*

4,961.34 = 1/80th = 62.01 x 30 = *1,860.30*

Occupational pension - *8,316* 

The state pension 12,911.60 which is not payable until 66/67/68

*Total pension = 21227.60. *

Rate of JSB payable at 11,440 added to the 8,316 = 19,756, more than the pre 95er, so the supplementary pension in this case would be 1471.60.

If they do bring in the new rule where we don't have to sign on for the JSB and replace this with the supplementary pension, then it will be at the rate of the state pension.


----------



## hunter1

Someone else sent me their retirement calculation, 18.6 years service:


_€56,442.54 - €40,578.63 = €15,863.91_
_€40,578.63/200 = €202.89*18.633424 =* €3,780.59*_
_€15,863.91/80 = €198.29*18.633424 = *€3,694.99*_
_€3,780.59 + €3,694.99 = *€7,475.58*_
_
State pension is *12017* payable at 66 *but in the interim disability benefit and/or supplementary pension should be payable* 

Total pension - _*19492.58*

In this case, disability benefit was 203 or 10,556, plus the occupational pension 7,475.58 = *18,031.58* and she receives a supplementary pension of *1,461 *which brought her to her total pension of *19492.58*. 

For a pre 95er the pension would be calculated as follows:

56,442.54, the maximum pension = *28,221.27*

28,221.27/40x18.6 = *13,122.89*

And again, the difference is because pre 1995ers did not make a personal contribution, they did not pay PRSI and their pension benefit is not integrated with social welfare benefits. 

And this is where my query started because I was told that I would not receive my full entitlement on my retirement, I was told that this would be reduced by the rate of the state pension as I could not claim this because I wasn't the age.

On retiring I was advised that I had to apply for JSB to bring the benefit up to 40/80ths (which it didn't), on exhausting JSB I was to then make the application for the supplementary pension, this payment would then cease when I reached the state pension age. 

I found this just an incredible and convoluted way to get the same benefit as my pre-1995 colleague.

Thankfully, it appears that this anomaly has been identified and if a private sector employee doesn't have to sign on when they retire, then the same should apply to me.

Maybe Early Riser won't agree with this, but these calculations are from our pension department.


----------



## gianni

nad said:


> These haven't too much to worry about as regards their pension.
> 
> 
> View attachment 4234



Do you think politicians shouldn't be able to benefit from a pension? They are treated no differently in relation to other civil servants.


----------



## orka

Conan said:


> Where did the capital values come from. They don't look correct. E Kenny and C O'Caolain have similar benefits but very different capital values???
> As an approx capital value you could assume a multiple of say 35 times the Pension plus the lump sum
> Worth bearing in mind that someone getting a full State Pension (plus Qualified Adult Dependents Pension) of c€25,000, this has a capital value of c€750,000.


Does look odd alright - particularly as EK is a bit older than COC.  It could be that they are showing his retiring TD's annual pension but the capital amount is for everything including his ex-Taoiseach pension (which I think would be in excess of 100K p.a.)
EK's pension will be permanently linked to the prevailing Taoiseach salary while COC's will be linked to the prevailing TD salary but I doubt there's much difference expected in the inflation)


[PS any chance the Early Riser / hunter1 mega-calcs posts could be hived off elsewhere? They are very specific and not really on the original topic / general discussion]


----------



## hunter1

orka said:


> Does look odd alright - particularly as EK is a bit older than COC.  It could be that they are showing his retiring TD's annual pension but the capital amount is for everything including his ex-Taoiseach pension (which I think would be in excess of 100K p.a.)
> EK's pension will be permanently linked to the prevailing Taoiseach salary while COC's will be linked to the prevailing TD salary but I doubt there's much difference expected in the inflation)
> 
> 
> [PS any chance the Early Riser / hunter1 mega-calcs posts could be hived off elsewhere? They are very specific and not really on the original topic / general discussion]



My sincere apologies, I actually thought that I was in the original thread where my query started.


----------



## Steven Barrett

hunter1 said:


> According to Charlie Weston this morning:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Weston: 'Private sector workers are hung out to dry as taxpayers left to fund unfair gold-plated system'
> 
> 
> You have to admire public servants. The biggest issue in the election so far is the State pension age being raised. Yet our public servants managed to insulate themselves from this costly change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.ie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Take a public servant on €80,000, retiring after 40 years at age 64.
> 
> Her public service pension is worked out at €27,045 a year. When this is added to the State pension of €12,956 gives her a 50pc final salary pension, according to calculations by pensions expert Tony Gilhawley of Technical Guidance.
> 
> But she won't get the State pension until she is 67.
> 
> *Provided she is not working, her public service employer will pay her a 'supplementary pension' of €12,956 a year between retirement at 64 and State pension age at 67.
> 
> In effect she will get the State pension immediately except that for the first three years it's paid by her employer as a supplementary pension."*_
> 
> But from what I have been reading on this site from other Garda as well as ourselves, this is not the case because we have been advised that we have to first sign on the dole for 9 months (leaving us with a shortfall of the difference between JSB and the State pension) and then apply for the supplementary pension from our own department.
> 
> Now what Charlie is saying makes much more sense in a way, where it ceases to make sense is why, when we are entitled to half our salary from our employer on retirement, that part of this is classed as a "supplement", we're not asking for or getting any more than the 50% that is our pension package.



That article is a hatchet job. In this example, the public servant has contributed to their pension for 40 year as well as their PRSI contributions. They are compared to someone who has never contributed to a private pension in their life, just their PRSI.

Why not compare what the situation would be if they had contributed 6.5% of salary to a defined contribution pension for 40 years?
- Just worked out if a private sector worker starting on €20,000 a year, invested 6.5% of their salary for 40 years, they would have €322,621 at the end. This assumes growth of 6% per annum and a pay increase of 3% each year. 

It also highlights the benefits of being in a union, a body that a lot of private sector workers won't pay for.

Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## ashambles

SBarrett said:


> - Just worked out if a private sector worker starting on €20,000 a year, invested 6.5% of their salary for 40 years, they would have €322,621 at the end. This assumes growth of 6% per annum and a pay increase of 3% each year.


You've ignored inflation.

If you want a salary growth of 3% - it's likely inflation around 3% as well. In that case the present value of 322k using the rest of your figures would be 100k.

However Irish life use a figure of 3.35% - 0.7% for charges as their current assumption for fund growth. For salary growth the use 1.5% and inflation @ 2.5% 

With Irish life pension growth figures I'd guess the PV of someone on 20k putting 6.5% per annum away at more like 70k as an end fund.


----------



## josh8267

SBarrett said:


> That article is a hatchet job. In this example, the public servant has contributed to their pension for 40 year as well as their PRSI contributions. They are compared to someone who has never contributed to a private pension in their life, just their PRSI.
> 
> Why not compare what the situation would be if they had contributed 6.5% of salary to a defined contribution pension for 40 years?
> - Just worked out if a private sector worker starting on €20,000 a year, invested 6.5% of their salary for 40 years, they would have €322,621 at the end. This assumes growth of 6% per annum and a pay increase of 3% each year.
> 
> It also highlights the benefits of being in a union, a body that a lot of private sector workers won't pay for.
> 
> Steven
> www.bluewaterfp.ie


First I will deal with the Union Issue you brought up ,
Private sectors workers in a union Are second class members when it comes to the golden goose,
In the public  sector if  there was any move on pensions the unions would be shouting from the roof tops  The same unions never ever gave a dam
for the private sector worker, The LABOUR party never gave a dam about the private sector worker

The Labour party and there Unions only ever seen the private sector workers as a rich seam to mine for there own benefit and FF/FG know this so they never had to worry about how the treated the private sector worker,

If you want proof of this Just look at the PRSI public service up until 1995 total stopped from payroll 1,96%

now look at the Private sector sector average PRSI stopped up until the USC came close to 20% of payroll

FF/FG with LABOURS help set about increasing the age to 68 for the Private sector worker who seen 20% of payroll taken in PRSI and at the same time give supplement payment to another Group paying the same PRSI to match the people paying  1.96 PRSI,

Private sector workers don't need to join a Union the need to find a party other than FF/FG and Labour to vote for,

Then you will see FF/FG LABOUR types of this world  turning on the SBarrets of this world,

My late father always voted for FF but I heard him say many a time if the ever get cornered to survive they would eat there own,

You will find most of the people who hold a views like yours pay 4% PRSI self employed Rate and just in case you don't know it only came in to force in 1988,go check,


There was not a peep out of the unions in the private sector They have lots of second class members they knew will as did the labour party ,
Joan Burton was the Minister in the Department dealing with pensions, until 2016,

All of the Main political parties in Ireland Treat the private sector workers and there employers with Contempt, they just see then as an easy target to rip off every chance the get,
I don't mind them being ripped off they deserve it , I pity high earners and people who have wealth tied up in Ireland ,
The sham of voting out FF and Putting  FG in and expecting things to be better for the two million private sector workers is coming to an end

The Good news is the first to be hit will be the tax relief on pensions  no more easy money for the smug feeding off the golden goose , I will be sorry to see high earners getting caught But most of them think FF/FG are the God that keeps giving,


If you want to know why this is so look no further than the virgin  media  debate last night ,

What we seen last night was the same party but two sections one called FF and the other section Called FG both would be well aware of the un fairness of the pension  system  both had a hand in putting in place  (SO BOTH NEW but one would never hang out the other  Both joined At The Hip ,when it comes to the Private sector workers,

In fact one of the FF ministers at the time the changes were announced stated we have to increase the age because we cant afford it,
only to retire at fifty and draw her pension  not a peep out of FG you will notice,
I expect FF/FG/LAB Golden circle will be very quite and let this blow over,


----------



## MrEarl

nad said:


> These haven't too much to worry about as regards their pension.
> 
> 
> View attachment 4234



There are so many valid points being made in this discussion thread that we should really split it into a few discussion threads at this stage....

But that image showing what the retiring politicians are taking as pensions, is one that seems to have been missed, and shouldn't have been....

While we've all the politicians running around promising us the earth, moon and stars... The first thing that we should demand that they should be doing, but they won't, is to bring their own pensions closer in line with everyone elses!


----------



## josh8267

MrEarl said:


> There are so many valid points being made in this discussion thread that we should really split it into a few discussion threads at this stage....
> 
> But that image showing what the retiring politicians are taking as pensions, is one that seems to have been missed, and shouldn't have been....
> 
> While we've all the politicians running around promising us the earth, moon and stars... The first thing that we should demand that they should be doing, but they won't, is to bring their own pensions closer in line with everyone elses!


MrEarl
What about The poor or should I say Smug tax planners and Pension Advisors they would be down quite a lot
Surely you know the would have to close lots of private sector pension loop holes,in a QUID PRO QUO  Move,
just thinking about all the poor people affected if they started closing golden handshakes tax planning,


----------



## hunter1

SBarrett said:


> That article is a hatchet job. In this example, the public servant has contributed to their pension for 40 year as well as their PRSI contributions. They are compared to someone who has never contributed to a private pension in their life, just their PRSI.
> 
> *Why not compare what the situation would be if they had contributed 6.5% of salary* to a defined contribution pension for 40 years?
> - Just worked out if a private sector worker starting on €20,000 a year, invested 6.5% of their salary for 40 years, they would have €322,621 at the end. This assumes growth of 6% per annum and a pay increase of 3% each year.
> 
> It also highlights the benefits of being in a union, a body that a lot of private sector workers won't pay for.
> 
> Steven
> www.bluewaterfp.ie



Why would I make that comparison, the article is not about the _occupational _part of the pension, it's about the State Pension.


----------



## josh8267

hunter1 said:


> Why would I make that comparison, the article is not about the _occupational _part of the pension, it's about the State Pension.


I get what you are posting lots don't ,  lots  pretend down my neck of the woods not to understand because they know well the PRSI will have to be reformed hitting the people under paying at present for there state pension,
Down where I live the people saying the don't mind seeing the age going to 68 have one thing in common they never payed much PRSI and were in a position to divert the savings into a private pension and get a tax break off the people who they expect to work to 68,


----------



## Steven Barrett

hunter1 said:


> Why would I make that comparison, the article is not about the _occupational _part of the pension, it's about the State Pension.



Public servants don't receive the State pension earlier than anyone else.


----------



## josh8267

SBarrett said:


> Public servants don't receive the State pension earlier than anyone else.


I am retired I meet up with all types of retired people,I have being in a discussion where one of the retirees was a retired public servant who started work in 1995/96 under the new scheme (her sister started under the old D stamp a few weeks before her), She took the side of Charlie on it, She said she still had the direct read charts showing her pension deductions, she is well clued in on pensions along with being very fair minded person,


----------



## hunter1

SBarrett said:


> Public servants don't receive the State pension earlier than anyone else.



I know and I didn't say otherwise if I can refer you back to the article:

_"Her public service pension is worked out at €27,045 a year. *When this is added to the State pension of €12,956 gives her a 50pc final salary pension, according to calculations by pensions expert Tony Gilhawley of Technical Guidance.

But she won't get the State pension until she is 67.

Provided she is not working, her public service employer will pay her a 'supplementary pension' of €12,956 a year between retirement at 64 and State pension age at 67."*_

While not in receipt of the actual State Pension, they will receive the same rate as it to bring their pensions up to (insert) /80ths as per the terms of their retirement package.


----------



## hunter1

josh8267 said:


> I get what you are posting lots don't ,  lots  pretend down my neck of the woods not to understand because they know well the PRSI will have to be reformed hitting the people under paying at present for there state pension,
> Down where I live the people saying the don't mind seeing the age going to 68 have one thing in common they never payed much PRSI and were in a position to divert the savings into a private pension and get a tax break off the people who they expect to work to 68,



But doesn't the change in the state pension age affect private pensions too? Aren't they now "integrated" with the State pension and therefore they now won't receive the state pension part until they reach the age?


----------



## Steven Barrett

hunter1 said:


> I know and I didn't say otherwise if I can refer you back to the article:
> 
> _"Her public service pension is worked out at €27,045 a year. *When this is added to the State pension of €12,956 gives her a 50pc final salary pension, according to calculations by pensions expert Tony Gilhawley of Technical Guidance.
> 
> But she won't get the State pension until she is 67.
> 
> Provided she is not working, her public service employer will pay her a 'supplementary pension' of €12,956 a year between retirement at 64 and State pension age at 67."*_
> 
> While not in receipt of the actual State Pension, they will receive the same rate as it to bring their pensions up to (insert) /80ths as per the terms of their retirement package.



That is the terms of their occupational pension scheme that was negotiated years back. Public servants contribute to this scheme from day 1 in the public service. They also pay the Additional Superannuation Contribution as well as their PRSI contributions. 

It is completely different to someone who just pays their PRSI contributions. 


Steven 
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## josh8267

hunter1 said:


> But doesn't the change in the state pension age affect private pensions too? Aren't they now "integrated" with the State pension and therefore they now won't receive the state pension part until they reach the age?


Private sector no,
Just for the record I was out for coffee with some retirees today the increasing of the pension age came up , all of the public service retirees in the group agree it is unfair on the private sector worker to increase pension age,there are of the view anyone they came across supporting increasing pension are well off out of touch types,


----------



## hunter1

SBarrett said:


> That is the terms of their occupational pension scheme that was negotiated years back. Public servants contribute to this scheme from day 1 in the public service. They also pay the Additional Superannuation Contribution as well as their PRSI contributions.
> 
> It is completely different to someone who just pays their PRSI contributions.
> 
> 
> Steven
> www.bluewaterfp.ie



How is it different? 

In relation to the State Pension, nobody is being treated differently, we all have the same PRSI requirements and we all have to be the correct age to receive the pension.


----------



## hunter1

josh8267 said:


> Private sector no,
> Just for the record I was out for coffee with some retirees today the increasing of the pension age came up , all of the public service retirees in the group agree it is unfair on the private sector worker to increase pension age,



But the increase applies to everyone because as Steven pointed out, nobody receives the State Pension until they reach that age, maybe Private pensions have allowed for this - so the only people really suffering from the age increase are those who don't have a private pension, which is a lot of people.


----------



## josh8267

hunter1 said:


> But the increase applies to everyone because as Steven pointed out, nobody receives the State Pension until they reach that age, maybe Private pensions have allowed for this - so the only people really suffering from the age increase are those who don't have a private pension, which is a lot of people.


That is private pension sales talk, I don't want to muddy the waters so to speak , to be fair to the public servants I know and understand pensions say Charley Weston is correct ,others who say different Don't fully understand,


----------



## hunter1

josh8267 said:


> That is private pension sales talk, I don't want to muddy the waters so to speak , to be fair to the public servants I know and understand pensions say Charley Weston is correct ,others who say different Don't fully understand,



What is private pension sales talk?

Just to add, I too think Charlie is correct in respect of us receiving our full pension entitlements when we retire through this supplementary pension, this was my initial query when I found this site.

I was told a load of nonsense, which I have subsequently queried again and am awaiting a response.


----------



## josh8267

hunter1 said:


> What is private pension sales talk?
> 
> Just to add, I too think Charlie is correct in respect of us receiving our full pension entitlements when we retire through this supplementary pension, this was my initial query when I found this site.
> 
> I was told a load of nonsense, which I have subsequently queried again and am awaiting a response.


Hi Hunter
are you public or private sector,


----------



## hunter1

josh8267 said:


> are you public or private sector,



Public sector with a compulsory retirement age of 60 (Gardai & Prison Officer).


----------



## sidzer

PGF2016 said:


> This is one of very few unpopular but prudent decisions made by a government that I'm aware of. It makes perfect sense to increase the retirement age as people live longer and in better health.


However, they have very different rules for themselves and i don't hear sinn fein or labour complaining


----------

