# State Pension -  deferral proposal, up to age 70



## fayf (26 Jul 2022)

Any thoughts on this, appreciate its only a proposal, right now.








						Workers could defer pension under 'flexible' plan
					

The age at which people receive the State pension is set to remain at 66 under plans set to be finalised by the Government in the autumn.




					www.rte.ie
				




So, main items for people who want to, and are able to work the extra 1, 2, 3, or 4 years, is, what extra payment they will get.

Does this mean PRSI no longer ceases at aged 66 like it currently does. but continues until 70.

People who start drawing their ARF or other pension, at say aged 65, and qualify for the state contributory pension, presumably these will not be excluded, from availing of deferral of state contributory pension  allthough they may continue to contribute PRSI from 66 to 70, if PRSI is extended.

So, lets say state contributory pension is a rounded 13k, and one defers the full 4 years, thats 52k in total, that one did not get, so a full 4 year deferal, would need to be at least amount to few extra grand per year, if deferred until 70.

Granted, many other factors, like allowing people who want to work longer, and many social benefits for them.


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2022)

The announcement really raises so many questions that it’s hard to know what to make of it.

I guess we’ll just have to wait for the detail.


----------



## Steven Barrett (27 Jul 2022)

One of the main benefits to this is for people who don't have the required level of stamps at age 66. They can carry on working to get the full pension. For those who have accumulated the full amount of stamps, it is hard to see the benefit in deferring the State pension. If the higher amount outpays the standard amount, it will be in your 90's when you probably won't care too much. 

The whole thing reeks of political maneuvering. The State pension was set to be paid at age 67 and increase gradually over the years. It was all set in line with life expectancy so each generation got paid the State pension for the same amount of time (on average). This was announced years ago. And then it became an election issue. And now it is a mess. We can't afford to pay pensions from 66 indefinitely so now there is going to be a PRSI increase to cover the costs. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Towger (27 Jul 2022)

The pension time bomb keeps ticking.
Word is with high inflation the powers that be have pushed Pension Auto Enrollment down the road yet again.
It will not be fun if/when our new found wealth from Corporation Tax dries up.


----------



## I'm Nobody (27 Jul 2022)

19% of men, 12% of women die before they reach the age of 65.
I wonder where their contributions go?.


----------



## ashambles (27 Jul 2022)

This will not be seen as rewarding people who work until 70  - it will be seen as penalizing people who don't work until 70.  The attraction for government seems to be they see it as a cheap way to get the retirement age back to 65 (which I don't think was the commission's idea).

Most people won't work until 70 despite the spin about people being "allowed" to work - most people want to be "allowed" retire at an age where they've a few years where they're healthy and active.

For example the chair of the pension commission proposing this new plan retired  on a substantial pension at 57 from Revenue - I'm sure she'd have been "allowed" work longer. A very able woman by all accounts - and great she's keeping busy - if only there were enough government board memberships to keep everyone's mind moderately active in retirement. Who needs sudoko if you one can land one of these?


----------



## jpd (27 Jul 2022)

I'm Nobody said:


> 19% of men, 12% of women die before they reach the age of 65.
> I wonder where their contributions go?.


Their contributions are used to pay the pensions of those who receive pensions at the time

A lot of people think that their PRSI contributions are put aside into a cookie jar to pay THEIR pension when they retire - this is not the case.
All PRSI contributions are used to pay the pensions and other social welfare payments immediately

Pensions are paid from the contributions of those working - at the moment there are 4-5 workers paying in per pension being paid out but in 20 years it will be 2-3 workers paying in per pension being paid out. Something will have to give - either higher PRSI, lower pension or longer working life or a combination of these


----------



## twofor1 (27 Jul 2022)

fayf said:


> Any thoughts on this, appreciate its only a proposal, right now.


So,  say you qualify for the full state pension and choose to work extra years after 66 then you get paid more, fair enough.

I hope that applies to those who worked extra years early in their careers. I started work at 16, when I reach 66 I will have nearly 50 years of contributions, that's almost 10 years more than the required amount for the full state pension.

I understand the person claiming at 70 will be claiming for 4 years less, but if what’s proposed is to pay more for additional years, then it would seem unfair if my additional 10 years did not get me some additional payment on top of the basic pension.


----------



## Groucho (27 Jul 2022)

I'm Nobody said:


> 19% of men, 12% of women die before they reach the age of 65.
> I wonder where their contributions go?.



If they're single then the contributions are absorbed by the system.   

If they're married then their surviving spouse is eligible to apply for the survivor's contributory pension, which also makes provision for dependant children.


----------



## Groucho (27 Jul 2022)

fayf said:


> Any thoughts on this, appreciate its only a proposal, right now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This had been raised in the National Pensions Framework that the then government adopted in 2010 (only for a subsequent government to abandon in 2020 for populist reasons!) 

Section 3.6 states as follows:  



> People are living longer, and many people want to have the option of working longer. For those people who wish to postpone drawing down their state pension, arrangements will be put in place to enable them to receive an actuarially increased benefit when they decide to retire. *The actuarial adjustment applied will not impose any additional burden on the Exchequer.*
> In addition, for those with contribution shortfalls at pension age, arrangements will be put in place to allow them to receive additional benefits at a later date if they continue to make paid contributions for pension purposes while remaining in work or self employment.


----------



## fayf (27 Jul 2022)

PRSI increases are enevitable, but to me, this also looks like PRSI, will continue to apply from age 66, up to age 70, so for those who do not want to defer drawing the State Contributory Pension, and commence ARF withdrawals, they maybe subject to PRSI, for the additional 4 years. Thats € 3,200 extra in PRSI deductions, (which is not currently the case)over the 4 years 66 to 70, for someone who has an ARF withdrawal of 20k per annum.


----------



## ashambles (27 Jul 2022)

The average salary seems to be 45,000 - for regular workers that's 6500+ in PRSI.  The pension is 13,000 per year.

The COAP alone is easily affordable now - even a few decades out it will be. It's affordable because in Ireland it's a bad deal for middle to higher income earners and helpfully the payout rate isn't tied to inflation or anything else.

The problems are the other PRSI payments on top of pensions, the general income tax+PRSI hole left if people 65-70 opt to get out of the workforce, but is always framed only as a pension problem as if we've some enviable state pension.


----------



## LDFerguson (27 Jul 2022)

Hard to evaluate this until the numbers are published.  As it stands I can't see it being of much help to anyone except those who won't have 40 years PRSI at 66.  If I make it to 66, I should have over 40 years PRSI by then.  If I'm to defer to 67, then I'm forfeiting about €13,000 pension for that year.   I'd want an increase of about 10% on the rate of pension from 67 to make that look attractive to me.  I wouldn't be at all interested in being told that I'd need to live into my late 80s before I can recoup the €13,000.  Somehow I doubt that the increase in pensions offered in return for deferring will be within an ass's roar of 10%.


----------



## joe sod (27 Jul 2022)

The only people that will want to work up to 70 are by and large in the public services but not on the front lines on high salaries  , the state pension would be irrelevant to them anyway. 

However if these guys at the top of their careers and pay grades are allowed to stay on until 70 it prevents younger workers moving up the ladder. Then there will be all really old people clinging onto jobs it will be like the over 70s soccer match from Fr Ted, everything will slow down to snails pace


----------



## marsaday (27 Jul 2022)

Apparantly , according to the report that *fayf *mentioned , this system is already in operation in Estonia. Anybody know how things are shaping up with it there regarding number of uptakes etc ?


----------



## cwc456 (27 Jul 2022)

Groucho said:


> If they're single then the contributions are absorbed by the system.
> 
> If they're married then their surviving spouse is eligible to apply for the survivor's contributory pension, which also makes provision for dependant children.


Information about the survivor's contributory pension here: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/... Pension is,/Widower's (Contributory) Pension. 

It's not clear to me whether the deceased person needs to be already in receipt of the pension or whether the survivor's contributory pension would be paid if they died before age 66 (assuming they have enough PRSI contributions).


----------



## marsaday (27 Jul 2022)

I'm Nobody said:
19% of men, 12% of women die before they reach the age of 65.
I wonder where their contributions go?.


Any idea what's the percentages of woman and men who die before 70?  I think that would be relevant to the conversation.
For them that would be €52,000 that they never got after contributing , in a lot of cases a lot more than that figure over a lifetime. Impossible to see how there would be a take up for this scheme.


----------



## muinteoir (27 Jul 2022)

Steven Barrett said:


> One of the main benefits to this is for people who don't have the required level of stamps at age 66. They can carry on working to get the full pension. For those who have accumulated the full amount of stamps, it is hard to see the benefit in deferring the State pension. If the higher amount outpays the standard amount, it will be in your 90's when you probably won't care too much.
> 
> The whole thing reeks of political maneuvering. The State pension was set to be paid at age 67 and increase gradually over the years. It was all set in line with life expectancy so each generation got paid the State pension for the same amount of time (on average). This was announced years ago. And then it became an election issue. And now it is a mess. We can't afford to pay pensions from 66 indefinitely so now there is going to be a PRSI increase to cover the costs.
> 
> ...


What are the required level of stamps?


----------



## NotPoodle (27 Jul 2022)

twofor1 said:


> So,  say you qualify for the full state pension and choose to work extra years after 66 then you get paid more, fair enough.
> 
> I hope that applies to those who worked extra years early in their careers. I started work at 16, when I reach 66 I will have nearly 50 years of contributions, that's almost 10 years more than the required amount for the full state pension.
> 
> I understand the person claiming at 70 will be claiming for 4 years less, but if what’s proposed is to pay more for additional years, then it would seem unfair if my additional 10 years did not get me some additional payment on top of the basic pension.



How would it be unfair? You have answered the question with a person working until 70 claiming less years. You will also have the same opportunity to work until 70 for whatever increase there is.


----------



## Groucho (27 Jul 2022)

cwc456 said:


> It's not clear to me whether
> 1.  the deceased person needs to be already in receipt of the pension, or
> 2. whether the survivor's contributory pension would be paid if they died before age 66 (assuming they have enough PRSI contributions).



It's the latter.


----------



## Groucho (27 Jul 2022)

muinteoir said:


> What are the required level of stamps?



The entry eligibility level for the State Contributory Pension is 520 paid reckonable contributions.     (i.e. 10 years contributions)

But to get the full Contributory Pension, one needs a total of 2,080 reckonable contributions (paid or credits).


----------



## cwc456 (27 Jul 2022)

Groucho said:


> It's the latter.


thanks for clarifying that Groucho.


----------



## ashambles (27 Jul 2022)

LDFerguson said:


> Hard to evaluate this until the numbers are published.  As it stands I can't see it being of much help to anyone except those who won't have 40 years PRSI at 66.  If I make it to 66, I should have over 40 years PRSI by then.  If I'm to defer to 67, then I'm forfeiting about €13,000 pension for that year.   I'd want an increase of about 10% on the rate of pension from 67 to make that look attractive to me.  I wouldn't be at all interested in being told that I'd need to live into my late 80s before I can recoup the €13,000.  Somehow I doubt that the increase in pensions offered in return for deferring will be within an ass's roar of 10%.


In the Irish Times on Monday a figure given by Cliff Taylor was that the "Pension Commission suggested that the annual increase ... would be in the region of 4 per cent annum" with an example of retiring at 66 on 253.30 or 67 at 263.00.  So recouping it in your early 90s rather than late 80s.

A positive line by Cliff Taylor was the commission "recommended that pensions should automatically rise in tandem with wages and prices".  That would be a game changer in retirement planning - but unlikely to be committed to by government in any legally binding way.


----------



## Conan (27 Jul 2022)

Groucho said:


> The entry eligibility level for the State Contributory Pension is 520 paid reckonable contributions.     (i.e. 10 years contributions)


To be clear , you need at least 520 paid contributions to get a minimum State Pension. To get a full State Pension you need 40 years of contributions (2080 contributions) or an average of at least 48 contributions per annum over your history in the PRSI system.


----------



## LDFerguson (27 Jul 2022)

ashambles said:


> In the Irish Times on Monday a figure given by Cliff Taylor was that the "Pension Commission suggested that the annual increase ... would be in the region of 4 per cent annum" with an example of retiring at 66 on 253.30 or 67 at 263.00. So recouping it in your early 90s rather than late 80s.



Yes I read Cliff's article and it made me laugh as to how unappealing the current suggestions are.  And that's entirely separate from the "bird in the hand" aspect that an extra €13,000 (for each year) is likely to be far more valuable to you when you're in your mid-60s than in your 90s.  

The whole thing smells like an attempt to be seen to be "doing something", rather than a sincere attempt to solve an issue.


----------



## Groucho (28 Jul 2022)

LDFerguson said:


> Yes I read Cliff's article and it made me laugh as to how unappealing the current suggestions are.  And that's entirely separate from the "bird in the hand" aspect that an extra €13,000 (for each year) is likely to be far more valuable to you when you're in your mid-60s than in your 90s.
> 
> The whole thing smells like an attempt to be seen to be "doing something", rather than a sincere attempt to solve an issue.



It's a proposed option that may suit a limited number of people - including, as it happens, my wife who won't have reached the magic 520 reckonables by age 66!    It's not intended to be a 'one size fits all' solution.


----------



## LDFerguson (28 Jul 2022)

Groucho said:


> It's a proposed option that may suit a limited number of people - including, as it happens, my wife who won't have reached the magic 520 reckonables by age 66!    It's not intended to be a 'one size fits all' solution.



I'm happy for your wife but this is only going to suit a small cohort of people with circumstances like hers.  Your wife's example doesn't do anything to solve the initial problem, which is the ever-increasing cost of the State Pensions.  If anything, the example of your wife is an additional cost.  

It's certainly not the "radical shake-up" that was originally trumpeted.


----------



## joe sod (28 Jul 2022)

Even the minimum pension entitlement after just 10 years prsi contributions is very generous because the minimum pension is not 25% of the full state pension (even though that requires 40years of contributions )  . Even with 10 years contributions you still get the majority of the full state pension.  That's a great deal.

How will this be all financed probably ireland hits another financial crisis in the future and next time they will be forced to cut the state pension or allow high inflation to erode its value


----------



## Bluefin (28 Jul 2022)

Inflation the more likely option


----------



## Conan (28 Jul 2022)

joe sod said:


> Even the minimum pension entitlement after just 10 years prsi contributions is very generous because the minimum pension is not 25% of the full state pension (even though that requires 40years of contributions )  . Even with 10 years contributions you still get the majority of the full state pension.  That's a great deal.
> 
> How will this be all financed probably ireland hits another financial crisis in the future and next time they will be forced to cut the state pension or allow high inflation to erode its value


With only 10 years of a contribution history, the likely State Pension will be 40% (still generous) based on the Total and Average calculation model. But if the Total Contribution Approach was adopted (as previously promised), then the pension would be 25% (10/40ths).


----------



## Groucho (28 Jul 2022)

LDFerguson said:


> I'm happy for your wife but this is only going to suit a small cohort of people with circumstances like hers.  Your wife's example doesn't do anything to solve the initial problem, which is the ever-increasing cost of the State Pensions.  If anything, the example of your wife is an additional cost.
> 
> It's certainly not the "radical shake-up" that was originally trumpeted.



Couldn't agree more.   It enrages me.    (And I write that despite the fact that political cowardice led to me getting my State pension a year earlier than I had expected - aged 66 rather than 67!)


----------



## muinteoir (28 Jul 2022)

Groucho said:


> The entry eligibility level for the State Contributory Pension is 520 paid reckonable contributions.     (i.e. 10 years contributions)
> 
> But to get the full Contributory Pension, one needs a total of 2,080 reckonable contributions (paid or credits).


What happens if you only have 520 contributions made? Does that mean you only get €126.70? Does it mean that you'd be better off on the non-contributory pension?


----------



## LDFerguson (28 Jul 2022)

muinteoir said:


> What happens if you only have 520 contributions made? Does that mean you only get €126.70? Does it mean that you'd be better off on the non-contributory pension?



Under the present system, that would depend on how many contributions you have on average from the date you first started paying PRSI.


----------



## muinteoir (28 Jul 2022)

LDFerguson said:


> Under the present system, that would depend on how many contributions you have on average from the date you first started paying PRSI.


Ah I see what you mean. It's an average from the first time you are registered so for some they might be better off because they would start later. Would that be taken from the first full (52 contributions in the year) or from the first time you made contributions?


----------



## Conan (28 Jul 2022)

Under the Total and Average method its based on your average number of weekly contributions pa from when you first started paying PRSI. Under the Total Contribution Approach its 1/40th for each year of contribution. And currently you get whichever is the higher figure.
In terns of the Non Contributory Pension, that is means tested.


----------



## Codogly (29 Jul 2022)

Strikes me that this is an opportunity to reduce the standard rate state pension …I reckon they will allow the std state pension to stay around 13k ( effectively losing out to inflation ) and they’ll increase the deferred rate maybe 14k / 15k / 16k / 17k (67-70) , their logic been ; those who have no occupational pension can / will have to work until 70 and those who do have occupational pensions are not as reliant on the state pension so they will still be able to retire at 65/66.  This approach ties in perfectly with they’re plan to encourage everybody to auto enroll and start providing for their own retirement


----------



## joe sod (29 Jul 2022)

But if that was there strategy to get everyone on auto enrolled and then reduce dependence on state pension,  why did they stall so long on auto enrolled. 
Surely they should have been pushing to get that in place years ago then?
Maybe it will all only become evident after the next financial crisis how pensions will be dealt with long term. 
Todays workers will be enraged when they are paying increased prsi contributions to pay for Todays welfare recipients while in the future getting much less benefits themselves


----------



## Conan (29 Jul 2022)

joe sod said:


> But if that was there strategy to get everyone on auto enrolled and then reduce dependence on state pension,  why did they stall so long on auto enrolled.
> Surely they should have been pushing to get that in place years ago then?
> Maybe it will all only become evident after the next financial crisis how pensions will be dealt with long term.
> Todays workers will be enraged when they are paying increased prsi contributions to pay for Todays welfare recipients while in the future getting much less benefits themselves


And the Pensions Commission proposal is that PRSI should continue to be payable after age 66 in order to finance the unsustainable State Pension. But perhaps SF will solve the financial problems by watering their "money tree".


----------



## Sarenco (29 Jul 2022)

Conan said:


> And the Pensions Commission proposal is that PRSI should continue to be payable after age 66 in order to finance the unsustainable State Pension. But perhaps SF will solve the financial problems by watering their "money tree".


It seems odd that folks could be paying PRSI on the State Contributory pension.

It really annoys me when Governments make important policy announcements without working through any of the details.


----------



## Groucho (29 Jul 2022)

Sarenco said:


> It seems odd that folks could be paying PRSI on the State Contributory pension.
> 
> It really annoys me when Governments make important policy announcements without working through any of the details.



But the only hard information that we have to date is that:

the state pension age will remain 66​​people who continue working beyond this age will get a ‘bonus’ for each year they stay in employment​​Heather Humphreys and her officials are still working on the new system which will be announced later this year.​​At this point, the rest is just speculation.

As you said yourself earlier in this thread, "I guess we’ll just have to wait for the detail."!


----------



## Sarenco (29 Jul 2022)

Groucho said:


> At this point, the rest is just speculation.


Agreed but I was responding to @Conan comment on the Pension Commission proposal that PRSI should continue to be paid after 66.


----------



## Sharpie (29 Jul 2022)

Groucho said:


> But the only hard information that we have to date is that:
> 
> the state pension age will remain 66​​people who continue working beyond this age will get a ‘bonus’ for each year they stay in employment​​Heather Humphreys and her officials are still working on the new system which will be announced later this year.​​At this point, the rest is just speculation.
> 
> As you said yourself earlier in this thread, "I guess we’ll just have to wait for the detail."!


Unless SF get in at the next election  , which seems very likely , and they reduce state pension age to 65 , if they keep their promise. Don't agree with their pension proposals , but its very likely it will happen as its a big selling point for them at the voting booth.


----------



## Groucho (30 Jul 2022)

Sharpie said:


> Unless SF get in at the next election  , which seems very likely , and they reduce state pension age to 65 , if they keep their promise. Don't agree with their pension proposals , but its very likely it will happen as its a big selling point for them at the voting booth.



Presumably the changes in PRSI would need to be included in the 2022 Finance Bill; and the changes in State Pensions will require an amendment to the Pensions Act - both of will have been enacted long before (if) the Magic Money Tree Party takes control .


----------



## fayf (20 Sep 2022)

Some proposals on this:
“
The weekly State pension would increase from €253 for 66-year-olds to €266 for 67-year-olds; €281 for 68-year-olds; €297 for 69-year-olds; and €315 for 70-year-olds - a combined 24% increase.”









						Pension age stays at 66, carers included in new reforms
					

The State pension age will remain at 66 and people will be offered the choice to work until 70 in return for higher payments, Minister for Social Protection Heather Humphreys has confirmed.




					www.rte.ie
				




It would take circa 20 years, to recoup the lost annual state pension, if you retired say 1 year after 66, probably not worth it, if want to retire at or before 66, but may suit others who want to work on, after 66.

EDIT:
Above proposals, now approved:








						Pension age stays at 66, carers included in new reforms
					

The State pension age will remain at 66 and people will be offered the choice to work until 70 in return for higher payments, Minister for Social Protection Heather Humphreys has confirmed.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## time to plan (20 Sep 2022)

jpd said:


> Their contributions are used to pay the pensions of those who receive pensions at the time
> 
> A lot of people think that their PRSI contributions are put aside into a cookie jar to pay THEIR pension when they retire - this is not the case.
> All PRSI contributions are used to pay the pensions and other social welfare payments immediately
> ...


In some cases, do they not also go into widows pensions?


----------



## Blackrock1 (20 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> But the only hard information that we have to date is that:
> 
> the state pension age will remain 66​​people who continue working beyond this age will get a ‘bonus’ for each year they stay in employment​​Heather Humphreys and her officials are still working on the new system which will be announced later this year.​​At this point, the rest is just speculation.
> 
> As you said yourself earlier in this thread, "I guess we’ll just have to wait for the detail."!


what about someone who reached 66 and didnt have enough stamps but has continued to work, will they now qualify by virtue of earning extra stamps beyond 66?


----------



## Groucho (20 Sep 2022)

Blackrock1 said:


> what about someone who reached 66 and didnt have enough stamps but has continued to work, will they now qualify by virtue of earning extra stamps beyond 66?



If they reach the magic 520 then presumably they will ......   unless the rules are changed, of course!    In which regard, I was interested to hear Heather mentioning the total contributions approach being phased in (over the next decade - at long last!)  during her interview on the RTE lunchtime news.


----------



## Groucho (20 Sep 2022)

Looks as though Mary Lou's spin doctors weren't around this morning when she came out with with the following bizzare claim:



> "Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald described the proposal as a “almost a Trojan horse to raise the pension age in reality to the age of 70″. She said working people of all ages “will be very very unsettled to hear that in a civilised, prosperous, indeed a wealthy society the age of retirement, the choice of retirement is at the age of 65 not 70. It seems to me the Government are trying to pull a manoeuvre”."



I wonder whether the "Trojan horse" that she was referring to was called Shergar!


----------



## noproblem (20 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> Looks as though Mary Lou's spin doctors weren't around this morning when she came out with with the following bizzare claim:
> 
> 
> 
> But maybe she was thinking of Shergar!


 "Manoeuvres" and Sinn Fein in the one sentence, a very dangerous combination indeed.


----------



## Protocol (20 Sep 2022)

Any mention of auto-enrolment today?


----------



## michaelm (20 Sep 2022)

Blackrock1 said:


> what about someone who reached 66 and didnt have enough stamps but has continued to work, will they now qualify by virtue of earning extra stamps beyond 66?


Such details, when they work them out, will be interesting.  I'd like to have seen an option to take an actuarially reduced state pension before 66.


----------



## ryaner (20 Sep 2022)

fayf said:


> Some proposals on this:
> “
> The weekly State pension would increase from €253 for 66-year-olds to €266 for 67-year-olds; €281 for 68-year-olds; €297 for 69-year-olds; and €315 for 70-year-olds - a combined 24% increase.”
> 
> ...


Has the full text of what was approved been released yet? There is a lot of details missing currently, and while using todays Euro figures helps a reader, depending on how it is actually written there is room for the 70 year old payment becoming the new baseline overtime.


----------



## fayf (20 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> Looks as though Mary Lou's spin doctors weren't around this morning when she came out with with the following bizzare claim:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder whether the "Trojan horse" that she was referring to was called Shergar!


Ya, Mary Lou, as usual,  leaves out wholly relevant information, like, its unbelievable, but there are actually some, who want to work beyond 65, this plan is far from perfect, but certainly adds more options/choices. 

There are also those, who don’t have enough in Private pension, or don’t have one at all, and have an option here, to work beyond 66, and end up with up to, an extra €3.2 k per year, if they are able & willing, to continue working. That relatively modest extra amount, can make a big difference.


----------



## Conan (20 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> If they reach the magic 520 then presumably they will ......   unless the rules are changed, of course!    In which regard, I was interested to hear Heather mentioning the total contributions approach being phased in (over the next decade - at long last!)  during her interview on the RTE lunchtime news.


In most cases, a minimum of 520 paid contributions is required to get even the minimum State Pension. Under the Total Contribution Approach, 10 years of contributions will get 10/40ths (25%) of a pension, ie c€63pw.


----------



## LDFerguson (21 Sep 2022)

Conan said:


> In most cases, a minimum of 520 paid contributions is required to get even the minimum State Pension. Under the Total Contribution Approach, 10 years of contributions will get 10/40ths (25%) of a pension, ie c€63pw.



I heard yesterday that part of these new plans include - finally - the move to having only the Total Contributions Approach from 2024, but with a phase-in period.


----------



## Groucho (21 Sep 2022)

LDFerguson said:


> I heard yesterday that part of these new plans include - finally - the move to having only the Total Contributions Approach from 2024, but with a phase-in period.



'twas truly depressing to hear Minister Heather Humphries kicking that particular can as far down the road as possible.


----------



## peemac (22 Sep 2022)

I'm Nobody said:


> 19% of men, 12% of women die before they reach the age of 65.
> I wonder where their contributions go?.


That's a UK figure. Probably similar here. It states "male" rather than "men" and the biggest age group is 15-24.
Possibly it also includes those under 15 too. And therefore the contributions come from a limited number within the 19%.

The good news is that if you hit 65 in good health your life expectancy is in the 90's


----------



## Allpartied (23 Sep 2022)

peemac said:


> The good news is that if you hit 65 in good health your life expectancy is in the 90's



Good news? 
But all the doomsayers on this website would call it an apocalyptic crisis


----------



## Steven Barrett (23 Sep 2022)

LDFerguson said:


> I heard yesterday that part of these new plans include - finally - the move to having only the Total Contributions Approach from 2024, but with a phase-in period.


The Pensions Roadmap 2018-2023 recommended this. It is something that is agreed by all to be implemented. Here we are in 2022 and it's still not implemented and they won't implement it for 6 years after the recommendation. 


As for the State pension, the only real benefit I can see for deferring your State pension is if you don't have enough stamps.

But the whole handling of the State pension is a mess, ever since it became a political issue. The solution is now to tax people more to pay for keeping the pension age at 66. Mary Lou wants to bring it back to 65. The transitory pension is gone since 2014. She didn't say anything about it at the time. Nor did she say anything in 2011 when legislation increased the pension age to 67 from 2021. These changes were logical and would save future generations billions. Now the politicians are involved, future generations are going to be lumbered with the cost of paying for these pensions. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## dubdub123 (23 Sep 2022)

Ive seen comments about this proposal with people mentioning losing out on money as you are not claiming the pension.. but you could say that about every social welfare payment..
eg if im unemployed for 10 years vs being employed for thise 10 years I dont get the social welfare payments..but personally i dont feel that im missing out..
In my situation asof now my mortgage will end in my lates 60s..
If i can continue to work on reasonable salary, make AVCs then to me thats a good thing.. better than being forced to retire..
I genuinely dont understand the negativity around this


----------



## Steven Barrett (23 Sep 2022)

dubdub123 said:


> Ive seen comments about this proposal with people mentioning losing out on money as you are not claiming the pension.. but you could say that about every social welfare payment..
> eg if im unemployed for 10 years vs being employed for thise 10 years I dont get the social welfare payments..but personally i dont feel that im missing out..
> In my situation asof now my mortgage will end in my lates 60s..
> If i can continue to work on reasonable salary, make AVCs then to me thats a good thing.. *better than being forced to retire*..
> I genuinely dont understand the negativity around this


You don't have to retire when you get the State pension. 

And having a private pension gives you choices. You are not reliant on when the state says you can retire and how much you can live on. Lots of people will be reliant. Some because they never had the disposal income to put into a pension. Others because they preferred to spend the money while they worked and didn't put anything away. 

the issue of deferring the pension is simply looking at when the higher rate will have paid out more than the ordinary rate. For those who take the OAP after 66, they will be 88 years of age before the higher rate has paid out more in total. The life expectancy of neither a man or a woman taking the OAP at any of those age will get the average person to age 88.


----------



## dubdub123 (23 Sep 2022)

Steven Barrett said:


> You don't have to retire when you get the State pension.
> 
> And having a private pension gives you choices. You are not reliant on when the state says you can retire and how much you can live on. Lots of people will be reliant. Some because they never had the disposal income to put into a pension. Others because they preferred to spend the money while they worked and didn't put anything away.
> 
> the issue of deferring the pension is simply looking at when the higher rate will have paid out more than the ordinary rate. For those who take the OAP after 66, they will be 88 years of age before the higher rate has paid out more in total. The life expectancy of neither a man or a woman taking the OAP at any of those age will get the average person to age 88.


Ah ok.. i was thinking this would only kick in on retirement. Honestly that seems bit mad to be paying state funded pension to someone who is still working.. and could be on a pretty high salary.. i was thinking of it as an either/or situation regarding working or state pension. I actually never realised it could be drawn down before retirement 
In thst case, yeah.. people will take the pension at earliest age to have the money in hand.


----------



## Protocol (23 Sep 2022)

We live in a free society.

You are free to work as much as you like after you qualify for the State Pension.

My father is 75 approx, and has several employments, while receiving a PS pension.

I'm sure there are thousands upon thousands of people aged 66-70 in employment, of various types, and self-employment, while receiving the State Pension.


----------



## Clamball (24 Sep 2022)

My company insists everyone retires at 65.  They say this is because it is in the contract of employment signed.  Therefore there is no option to work beyond 65.  My company cannot be unique so with this proposed optional increase in drawdown of state pension will they make it illegal for companies to have a retirement date on contracts of employment?


----------



## ryaner (24 Sep 2022)

Clamball said:


> My company insists everyone retires at 65.  They say this is because it is in the contract of employment signed.  Therefore there is no option to work beyond 65.  My company cannot be unique so with this proposed optional increase in drawdown of state pension will they make it illegal for companies to have a retirement date on contracts of employment?


There have been a few attempts to get a law passed to remove the restriction since the original pension age jumped to 66. Any job I've seen with a pension provided has had a retirement age which I assume is tied to the retirement benefits and insurances those policies all provide.


----------



## joe sod (24 Sep 2022)

I think the one big advantage of the mandatory 65 retirement age is that it kicks people out at that age and allows younger more vigorous people into these crucial decision making roles. I agree that people should be able to work beyond 65 but they shouldn't be allowed to hold onto prestigious highly paid and sought after roles simply because the mandatory retirement age has been removed, This will only result in the organisation stagnating as people wait for the person at the top to reach 70 so they can move up. It would be like Prince Charles having to wait for the Queen to die before he can progress


----------



## Clamball (24 Sep 2022)

It is just very frustrating that I will be unable to work from the age of 65 in a career I have invested decades in and if I want to work to age 70, I am going to encounter ageism (like from Joe Sod above). 

It is akin to the marriage ban that my mother encountered in the 60’s.  Females had to stop work on marriage to kick out potential mothers who would be less vigorous than males of the same age as they would have the added responsibility of house and family.

If the government want to encourage me to work for longer why not make it illegal for companies to adhere to retirement dates in contracts.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (25 Sep 2022)

Clamball said:


> My company insists everyone retires at 65. They say this is because it is in the contract of employment signed. Therefore there is no option to work beyond 65.


The UK has apparently legislated this away.

Employers like this clause at a certain point they want to be able to get rid of staff they don't want.

It's easier to oblige everyone to retire and the re-hire the ones you like than the other way around.


----------



## Groucho (25 Sep 2022)

joe sod said:


> I think the one big advantage of the mandatory 65 retirement age is that it kicks people out at that age and allows younger more vigorous people into these crucial decision making roles. I agree that people should be able to work beyond 65 but they shouldn't be allowed to hold onto prestigious highly paid and sought after roles simply because the mandatory retirement age has been removed, This will only result in the organisation stagnating as people wait for the person at the top to reach 70 so they can move up. It would be like Prince Charles having to wait for the Queen to die before he can progress



So where do you stand on the 81 year old Michael Dee Higgins?  

Or indeed on the 69 year old semi demi leaderette of the Soc Dems?     At least her fellow semi-demi leaderette is only 68!


----------



## Steven Barrett (26 Sep 2022)

ryaner said:


> There have been a few attempts to get a law passed to remove the restriction since the original pension age jumped to 66. Any job I've seen with a pension provided has had a retirement age which I assume is tied to the retirement benefits and insurances those policies all provide.


There is a difference between an employer saying you have to leave the position at age 65 and the pension having a retirement age of 65. All pension schemes have to have "normal retirement age". Pension funding calculations are based on this age and the employer is obligated to make contributions to this age. It is entirely possible that an employer can stop paying into your pension scheme when you reach age 65 but you continue to work in the company. 



joe sod said:


> I think the one big advantage of the mandatory 65 retirement age is that it kicks people out at that age and allows younger more vigorous people into these crucial decision making roles. I agree that people should be able to work beyond 65 but they shouldn't be allowed to hold onto prestigious highly paid and sought after roles simply because the mandatory retirement age has been removed, This will only result in the organisation stagnating as people wait for the person at the top to reach 70 so they can move up. It would be like Prince Charles having to wait for the Queen to die before he can progress



This very much depends on the person and the industry. Yes, there are roles where the person's output is reduced. People get tired. Ways of doing things change and as you get older, you don't change as quickly as others. But then there are loads of jobs where decades of experience is invaluable. It's a difficult needle to thread as companies shouldn't be forced to give a 60+ employee a pay off to get them off the books. Likewise, the way we work has changed now and people want to work longer. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## joe sod (26 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> So where do you stand on the 81 year old Michael Dee Higgins?
> 
> Or indeed on the 69 year old semi demi leaderette of the Soc Dems?     At least her fellow semi-demi leaderette is only 68!


That's different because they are elected by the people or by their contemporaries.  What I am saying is that companies or organisations should not be compelled by laws to keep people in sought after positions simply because the mandatory retirement age has been removed.
Its unfair on the people that are coming up as they might miss out on a promotion simply because they are waiting for the occupier of that position to retire and the company can not remove them. The whole decision making process will just stagnate as these people will just be sitting around waiting for retirement.

All and all though I think the danger for Ireland is that we are becoming overly regulated and this has been an increasing tendancy especially since covid. We have to remember that the bread and butter of our economy is FDI


----------



## Groucho (26 Sep 2022)

joe sod said:


> That's different because they are elected by the people or by their contemporaries.  What I am saying is that companies or organisations should not be compelled by laws to keep people in sought after positions simply because the mandatory retirement age has been removed.
> Its unfair on the people that are coming up as they might miss out on a promotion simply because they are waiting for the occupier of that position to retire and the company can not remove them. The whole decision making process will just stagnate as these people will just be sitting around waiting for retirement.
> 
> All and all though I think the danger for Ireland is that we are becoming overly regulated and this has been an increasing tendancy especially since covid. We have to remember that the bread and butter of our economy is FDI



But that appears to fly in the face of your earlier statement (with which I agree) that mandatory retirement ages "_allow younger more vigorous people into these crucial decision making roles._"        (But perhaps you don't regard opposition politicians as having any such role!)


----------



## ryaner (26 Sep 2022)

Steven Barrett said:


> There is a difference between an employer saying you have to leave the position at age 65 and the pension having a retirement age of 65. All pension schemes have to have "normal retirement age". Pension funding calculations are based on this age and the employer is obligated to make contributions to this age. It is entirely possible that an employer can stop paying into your pension scheme when you reach age 65 but you continue to work in the company.
> 
> 
> Steven
> www.bluewaterfp.ie


While there should be one, lots of contracts were written in a way that their isn't. More than a few employers got into a situation where the contracts are forcing retirements because the retirement age is hit and the insurance lapses at that age.


----------

