# What Noonan is now saying about the Pensions Levy: 2014



## LDFerguson (18 Jun 2014)

I presume we all remember Minister Noonan's dishonest U-turn in relation to the Pensions Levy in 2014.  For those that don't, he had promised to remove the levy in 2014 and then he did a U-turn on that promise, increased it in 2014 and extended it at a reduced rate into 2015.  Then to add insult to injury he attempted to blame the pensions industry for his U-turn by alleging in public that the pensions industry had failed to meet the terms of some notional "deal".  When pressed to elaborate on the nature of this "deal" he was forced to climb down as no such deal had ever been struck.  But he still went ahead with increasing and extending the levy regardless.  

Anyway, fast forward to 2014 and the Minister has been asked in May about any plans to extend the levy further, or make any other changes.  His reply was...



> "I announced in my Budget 2014 speech that the 0.6% Pension Fund Levy introduced to fund the Jobs Initiative in 2011 will be abolished from the 31st of December 2014. I introduced an additional levy at 0.15% which, as I also stated in the Budget speech, would apply within the existing legal framework to pension fund assets in 2014 and 2015. This was done to, among other things, continue to help fund the Jobs Initiative. I have no plans to make any further changes in this regard."



I for one have seen no figures as to what job creation projects the Pensions Levy has been spent on, nor how many jobs have actually been created.  Has anyone seen such figures?  

Anyway, my main purpose in posting this is as a record of what has been said this year on the matter, in case Minister Noonan decides to perform another U-turn later.


----------



## rob oyle (18 Jun 2014)

Unfortunately politicians are borne to relate all levy and tax increases to general economic data (where it is improving) or else sate how much worse things would've been if such taxes hadn't been incurred. They would never be able to relate specific funds raised to specific goals/targets achieved. For example, the Minister sometimes seems to relate the pension levy to the lower standard VAT rate (one pays for the other) but the monies would be taken from somewhere else if this levy didn't exist and if they really wanted to keep lower VAT rates. Is it really fair to say one wouldn't have happened without the other? No, but that doesn’t make for good political pronouncements.

Given they've been drawing on the pension levy for the last couple of years; I would say it is unlikely the 2015 will be the last year of it. State coffers tend to get used to funds coming in from certain avenues fairly quickly (VRT post European common market or USC would be two examples) and it gets increasingly difficult to wean them off it again as each year goes by. I’ve actually delayed making an AVC until the second half of this year as I don’t want 0.75% of what I put in going directly to less disciplined public expenditure.


----------



## Gerry Canning (18 Jun 2014)

Ld. 

This was no more than a cynical smash & grab.
I could maybe have seen some merit if it hit funds where it was obvious the funds put into pension had been enginered to avoid Tax.
I could also maybe see some merit hitting funds above a figure were it could be construed that funds that at retirement would give  pension over circa k50 would be hit.

Most of us have small Pension Pots.
Most of us know these Pension Pots will not give a lot.
Most of these Pots have reduced in downturn.
Takes more of a Pot today to buy a Pension.
Most of us though look forward to having that bit more than State Pension to give us a few bob.

As per roboyle;
Generally accepted State coffers long-term will have problems funding pensions , yet people like roboyle are being put off doing AVC? 

Madness + maddening what Fine Gael have done.
Cute though , in that unless you are close to Pension (like me) you sort of ignore!


----------



## serotoninsid (18 Jun 2014)

Gerry Canning said:


> Cute though , in that unless you are close to Pension (like me) you sort of ignore!



It should have been the item that attracted the highest level of outrage.  However, the irish mentality is one of thinking about right now - and rarely looking towards the future.  Therefore, people generally didn't see how big a 'theft' this really was.


----------



## TRS30 (18 Jun 2014)

I wish he had been honest and said what it was really for which is to cover the governments liability for under funded defined benefit schemes. This is the real salt in the wound of this 'levy'.


----------



## Steven Barrett (18 Jun 2014)

This pension levy is an absolute disgrace. 

As we all know, most defined benefit pension schemes are in massive deficit and simply cannot afford the tax. In order to pay it, the benefits payable to members is reduced. Of course, this doesn't effect public sector pensions as there is no pension fund to tax! 

Liam is right, how many jobs has this tax created and what are they in? What does this tax generate each year? €500m? In 4 years, they'll have €2bn from people's pension funds. That should have created a lot of jobs. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## MrEarl (18 Jun 2014)

Hello,

Pension funds are easy targets ... hence we've not seen the last of this form of taxation, from either the current or future Governments, in my personal view.

Obviously, past experience coupled with the future risk of further "levies" being applied discourages people from saving via pensions for their retirements - hence hitting both the pension industry now and the population as they get older & by extension, the State because as people get older if they do not have sufficient provisions they become a burden on the State.

A very short sighted approach but the Government won't care as they will all have retired and will probably collect very nice pensions which tax payers continue to fund !

The pension industry should be a very strong, powerful and influential lobby group so why they have alllowed this situation to exist so long is a mystery to me. They could easily rally support from the public at large and apply pressure on the Government so why not act - I just don't understand this ?


----------



## Steven Barrett (19 Jun 2014)

At the time of the introduction of the levy, the threat was to reduce tax relief on pension contributions to 20% which would have destroyed the pensions market...as well as putting a lot of people out of work and making the pensions crises that is waiting us down the road even bigger. 

The fact is, this current government are doing their damnest to stop people saving and get them to spend.  It is an extremely short sighted and unbalanced approach to getting this country back on its feet. 

The fact is, they are only looking to the next election and they couldn't care less what happens after that. They are all at the end of their careers anyway and they have their pensions (Enda having a teachers pension too despite not teaching for 39 years - that's another thing that he should have been hammered on). 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## elcato (19 Jun 2014)

> A very short sighted approach but the Government won't care as they will  all have retired and will probably collect very nice pensions which tax  payers continue to fund !


I think this is beyond just government. Add senior civil servants who probably pushed for it and the current old boys in Senate and Dail. Irish solution etc.


----------



## Gerry Canning (19 Jun 2014)

Not good when all the thread posters are singing off the one sheet!

Any views on what can be done?

What I am doing is mailing my local Fine Gael TD , Joe Mc Hugh and asking him to read AAM,s thread.


----------



## Steven Barrett (19 Jun 2014)

Beat you to it Gerry. I got on to Olivia Mitchell and Shane Ross yesterday. Olivia got back to me today (I don't expect a response from Ross, he never does). 

She had put a Dail question to the Minister which I have pasted below:


_DÁIL QUESTION_

To ask the Minister for Finance if he will confirm that the levy on defined contribution pensions, originally introduced to fund job creation measures, will not become a funding stream to subsidise defined benefit pensions in deficit in view of the fact that defined contribution schemes are in many cases comprised entirely of the savers personal savings; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

** For WRITTEN answer on Tuesday, 26th November, 2013.

Ref No: 50555/13

REPLY*

Minister for Finance ( Mr Noonan) : I announced in my recent Budget speech that the 0.6% Pension Fund Levy introduced to fund the Jobs Initiative in 2011 will be abolished from the 31st of December 2014. I am, however, introducing an additional levy on pension funds at 0.15%. This additional levy within the existing legal framework will apply to pension fund assets in 2014 and 2015. I am doing this to continue to help fund the Jobs Initiative, including the continuation of the reduced 9% VAT rate detailed below and to make provision for potential State liabilities which may emerge from pre-existing or future pension fund difficulties. 

The revenues arising to the Exchequer from the levy are, in common with Exchequer revenues generally, not hypothecated or set aside to meet any particular item of expenditure or liability but have been used to help fund the various measures introduced by the Jobs Initiative. One of the very significant and successful measures introduced by the Jobs Initiative – the reduced VAT rate of 9% on tourism and certain other services – was due to end this year. In my Budget speech, I announced the continuation of the reduced 9% VAT 
rate. I also announced that the Air Travel Tax is being reduced to zero with effect from 1 April 2014. The combined cost of these initiatives is estimated at close to €400 million in a full year.

The extent of the potential State liabilities from the pre-existing or future pension fund difficulties is a matter primarily for my colleague the Minister for Social Protection. However, I can say that agreement has been secured for these liabilities to be met by the Exchequer, where they arise. As I have already indicated, however, the proceeds from the levy that accrue to the Exchequer are not set aside in the manner suggested in the question 
and expenditure decisions on the use of those and other funds will be made as they arise in the normal way.

______________________________________________________

In order words, we are pumping €400m into these "job initiatives" each year but we are not monitoring how successful they are. What kind of clowns have we got in charge that will spend that kind of money and not monitor whether it is a success or not? Every penny I spend on marketing is recorded as is the return that I get from it. If it is not successful, I bin it and spend it on other methods. 

Even without results, the reduction in VAT is geared towards retail and hospitality sectors; low paid jobs. Is this the route they want to take in getting Ireland back on its feet? The tax would be more palatable if they announced that they were spending the money on training people in IT or R&D, areas that create highly skilled, well paid jobs that will attract foreign investment into the country. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## bstop (19 Jun 2014)

Expropriation of personal property, the abuse of the citizen for the glorification of the state. What oppressive regime does that remind me of ?


----------



## gianni (19 Jun 2014)

SBarrett said:


> They are all at the end of their careers anyway and they have their pensions (*Enda having a teachers pension too despite not teaching for 39 years - that's another thing that he should have been hammered on*).
> 
> 
> Steven
> www.bluewaterfp.ie



Did he not forgo this pension ?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0220/297872-politics/


----------



## TRS30 (23 Jun 2014)

SBarrett said:


> ______________________________________________________
> 
> In order words, we are pumping €400m into these "job initiatives" each year but we are not monitoring how successful they are. What kind of clowns have we got in charge that will spend that kind of money and not monitor whether it is a success or not? Every penny I spend on marketing is recorded as is the return that I get from it. If it is not successful, I bin it and spend it on other methods.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately value for money is one of the areas the the public service seem unable to do along with transparency and accountability.


----------



## RainyDay (23 Jun 2014)

SBarrett said:


> In order words, we are pumping €400m into these "job initiatives" each year but we are not monitoring how successful they are. What kind of clowns have we got in charge that will spend that kind of money and not monitor whether it is a success or not? Every penny I spend on marketing is recorded as is the return that I get from it. If it is not successful, I bin it and spend it on other methods.
> 
> Steven
> www.bluewaterfp.ie



How hard did you look? 
[broken link removed]



bstop said:


> Expropriation of personal property, the abuse of the citizen for the glorification of the state. What oppressive regime does that remind me of ?




Oooh, maybe the infamously oppressive Swiss? Or the damned oppressive Norwegians? Or possibly the arrogant and dismissively oppressive French?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Existing_net_wealth.2Fworth_taxes


TRS30 said:


> Unfortunately value for money is one of the areas the the public service seem unable to do along with transparency and accountability.



Yawn......


----------



## Steven Barrett (23 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> How hard did you look?
> [broken link removed]



When I got that response from the Minister for Finance I didn't see a need for further research. 

In that document, does it say how many jobs were created directly from the jobs initiative?


----------



## RainyDay (23 Jun 2014)

SBarrett said:


> When I got that response from the Minister for Finance I didn't see a need for further research.
> 
> In that document, does it say how many jobs were created directly from the jobs initiative?



So perhaps your "What kind of clowns have we got in charge that will spend that kind of money and not monitor whether it is a success or not? " was just a tad unjustified so?



SBarrett said:


> In that document, does it say how many jobs were created directly from the jobs initiative?



Dunno, haven't read it - it's your issue, not my issue.


----------



## TRS30 (24 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> So perhaps your "What kind of clowns have we got in charge that will spend that kind of money and not monitor whether it is a success or not? " was just a tad unjustified so?
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno, haven't read it - it's your issue, not my issue.



Maybe you should read it! 

It is nothing more than a marketing brochure saying nothing; here's all the things that we said we are going to do to create jobs and which ones we have completed. Nothing about how much has been spent or how many jobs have been created. Unless. 

If this is you evidence of monitoring of €400million and cost benefit analysis to defend the public service then Yawn indeed.......


----------



## RainyDay (24 Jun 2014)

TRS30 said:


> Maybe you should read it!
> 
> It is nothing more than a marketing brochure saying nothing; here's all the things that we said we are going to do to create jobs and which ones we have completed. Nothing about how much has been spent or how many jobs have been created. Unless.
> 
> If this is you evidence of monitoring of €400million and cost benefit analysis to defend the public service then Yawn indeed.......



Like I said, it's not my issue. You may well be right on your conclusions about this paper.

But interestingly enough, your conclusion (and SBarrett's initial conclusion) that this proves that there is no monitoring/evaluation is just slightly flawed. If you want to know what kind of evaluation/monitoring is happening, try speaking to someone who knows. Maybe someone in that Dept, or maybe someone in Richard Bruton's office. I know it's easier to rush into the usual AAM public sector bashing, but in all fairness, make a phone call before you rush to judgement.

It is interesting to see the faux outrage at the idea of wealth taxes or asset taxes, particularly on assets that were built up largely through tax relief. If the pensions industry continues to offer value for money to clients, it will continue to prosper. If the main value of the industry is to harness tax relief, then it is on a slippery slope.


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> It is interesting to see the faux outrage at the idea of wealth taxes or asset taxes, particularly on assets that were built up largely through tax relief. If the pensions industry continues to offer value for money to clients, it will continue to prosper. If the main value of the industry is to harness tax relief, then it is on a slippery slope.


 
Why on earth are you comparing this levy to a wealth tax? Lets take France and their so called wealth tax. First off, France like I think every other country in Europe allow tax relief on pension contributions. It is in fact EU policy to encourage people to save for their furture to meet future demographic issues. Secondly, France like the majority of Countries do not tax pension fund investment gains. I think one or two Countries might but not sure of the details. France like Ireland does not tax the fund at the end but will tax annuities arrising out of the funds as income. 
This wealth tax that you are talking about excludes pension funds except in a minority of cases. It also doesn't apply if your wealth is less than €1.3m or something. They also allow you to write your mortgage outstanding off against your property so as you can see this wealth tax does not impact on the vast majority of French citizens. 

You seem to have a big bee in your bonnet about tax relief and pensions. If the Government felt the same way, they should have changed the tax relief on it. They didn't. They didn't even say we are putting a levy on contributions made since people are benefiting from tax relief on those contributions. They instead put a levy on the entire value of the fund. Therefore they are not just taxing the element of the contribution that came from tax relief, they are taxing the contribution made out of my own pocket and they are also taxing any investment gains made by the fund. That is grossly unfair.


----------



## Gerry Canning (24 Jun 2014)

Am with you Sunny.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> But interestingly enough, your conclusion (and SBarrett's initial conclusion) that this proves that there is no monitoring/evaluation is just slightly flawed. If you want to know what kind of evaluation/monitoring is happening, try speaking to someone who knows. Maybe someone in that Dept, or maybe someone in Richard Bruton's office. I know it's easier to rush into the usual AAM public sector bashing, but in all fairness, make a phone call before you rush to judgement.


 I have been on trade missions with Enterprise Ireland at which government ministers give speeches and make announcements. Over the last 3 years the company I work for has created 24 jobs. I can say without a doubt that without government actions that figure would have been considerably higher. Increases in income tax, the removal of the PRSI ceiling, levies, increases in rates and general anti-employment measures taken by this government have made it much harder to find and retain key skilled staff. Without those key staff the downstream jobs can’t be created. The double taxation of pensions is just one more thing that makes it harder to find and retain people and put inflationary pressure on wages in general. This is an anti-employment, anti-employer and anti-success government. I didn’t expect anything better from a small-minded begrudging party like Labour but I am disappointed with Fine Gael. 



RainyDay said:


> It is interesting to see the faux outrage at the idea of wealth taxes or asset taxes, particularly on assets that were built up largely through tax relief. If the pensions industry continues to offer value for money to clients, it will continue to prosper. If the main value of the industry is to harness tax relief, then it is on a slippery slope.


 Pension contributions don’t get tax relief, the tax is deferred. Attacking people who are trying to make provision for their own future is stupid and petty and motivated by nothing more than misplaced jealousy by people who’s pensions are funded, to a large extent, by the state.


----------



## RainyDay (24 Jun 2014)

Sunny said:


> Why on earth are you comparing this levy to a wealth tax? Lets take France and their so called wealth tax. First off, France like I think every other country in Europe allow tax relief on pension contributions. It is in fact EU policy to encourage people to save for their furture to meet future demographic issues. Secondly, France like the majority of Countries do not tax pension fund investment gains. I think one or two Countries might but not sure of the details. France like Ireland does not tax the fund at the end but will tax annuities arrising out of the funds as income.
> This wealth tax that you are talking about excludes pension funds except in a minority of cases. It also doesn't apply if your wealth is less than €1.3m or something. They also allow you to write your mortgage outstanding off against your property so as you can see this wealth tax does not impact on the vast majority of French citizens.
> 
> You seem to have a big bee in your bonnet about tax relief and pensions. If the Government felt the same way, they should have changed the tax relief on it. They didn't. They didn't even say we are putting a levy on contributions made since people are benefiting from tax relief on those contributions. They instead put a levy on the entire value of the fund. Therefore they are not just taxing the element of the contribution that came from tax relief, they are taxing the contribution made out of my own pocket and they are also taxing any investment gains made by the fund. That is grossly unfair.



Honestly, I really know very little about wealth taxes across Europe, other than the fact that they exist in some countries, and the roof doesn't appear to have fallen in as a result. There is a big difference between a Government 'encouraging' people to provide for their future and a Government subsidising people to provide for their future through tax relief. 

What we seem to see here is a furious outrage at a modest clawback on existing assets - an asset tax, based on assets that were built substantially on tax relief. 

No-one is forced to put money into a pension (except civil/public servants, but that's another discussion). For anyone who doesn't like the conditions associated with pensions, they are welcome to use other methods to provide for their future.


----------



## 44brendan (24 Jun 2014)

Fair comment Purple. However, while I am condoning some of the actions taken by the current Government, I would see the majority of them as being reasonable if compared with the likely impact a Sin Fein coalation would want to impose.  
Absolutely the imposition of a quasi Wealth Tax on pension funds is counter productive, but these funds are to an extent regarding as easy targets for raising funds. There is certainly a narrow minded view that private pensions are unearned wealth and a burden on the taxpayer, where realistically they are the exact opposite. Putting in a disincentive to those who wish to save fro their retirement makes no sense economically, but it helps to placate the masses and gives Labour some crumbs to placate their supporters.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2014)

44brendan said:


> Fair comment Purple. However, while I am condoning some of the actions taken by the current Government, I would see the majority of them as being reasonable if compared with the likely impact a Sin Fein coalation would want to impose.
> Absolutely the imposition of a quasi Wealth Tax on pension funds is counter productive, but these funds are to an extent regarding as easy targets for raising funds. There is certainly a narrow minded view that private pensions are unearned wealth and a burden on the taxpayer, where realistically they are the exact opposite. Putting in a disincentive to those who wish to save fro their retirement makes no sense economically, but it helps to placate the masses and gives Labour some crumbs to placate their supporters.



I agree with all of that.


----------



## LDFerguson (24 Jun 2014)

Purple said:


> Pension contributions don’t get tax relief, the tax is deferred. Attacking people who are trying to make provision for their own future is stupid and petty and motivated by nothing more than misplaced jealousy by people who’s pensions are funded, to a large extent, by the state.



People on lower incomes may well get tax relief - if you're earning more than €32,800 per year and are therefore on the highest rate of Income Tax, you can claim tax relief at 41% on a pension contribution but if you're earning, say €40,000 per year you are unlikely to be able to amass a pension fund that would have you taxed at 41% in retirement.  You'll have your tax-free lump sum and your pension will probably be taxed at 20% or not at all.  

Higher earners who have the capacity to amass a pension fund that will still be taxed at 41% in retirement don't get tax relief, except on the tax-free lump sum element and tax-free growth of funds.  

So any changes to the current system of pension tax relief would impact lower earners far more than higher earners.  RainyDay seems to be in favour of such a change.


----------



## 44brendan (24 Jun 2014)

Rainy Day, your arguement is not based on any detailed knowledge or differentiation between Wealth tax and Income Tax. You may or may not be well versed on the differentiation and that tax relief on pension inputs is a deferral rather than a waiver of taxes payable. Pension assets are not Wealth in the general concept of the meaning. They are income generators for, in many cases averagely paid individuals who wish to put aside soem of their current earning to support their old age. Subsequent income is fully taxable.


----------



## RainyDay (24 Jun 2014)

LDFerguson said:


> People on lower incomes may well get tax relief - if you're earning more than €32,800 per year and are therefore on the highest rate of Income Tax, you can claim tax relief at 41% on a pension contribution but if you're earning, say €40,000 per year you are unlikely to be able to amass a pension fund that would have you taxed at 41% in retirement.  You'll have your tax-free lump sum and your pension will probably be taxed at 20% or not at all.
> 
> Higher earners who have the capacity to amass a pension fund that will still be taxed at 41% in retirement don't get tax relief, except on the tax-free lump sum element and tax-free growth of funds.
> 
> So any changes to the current system of pension tax relief would impact lower earners far more than higher earners.  RainyDay seems to be in favour of such a change.


I'm not sure that I fully understand Liam, is there any chance you could spell it out. I guess there are a few options in relation to tax relief;
1) Leave as is, with the cap in place
2) Restrict it to 'standard rate' tax relief, as has been done for medical expenses and health insurance
3) Eliminate it

Are you saying that both 2 and 3 would impact people at the lower end of the upper tax rate most?



44brendan said:


> Rainy Day, your arguement is not based on any detailed knowledge or differentiation between Wealth tax and Income Tax. You may or may not be well versed on the differentiation and that tax relief on pension inputs is a deferral rather than a waiver of taxes payable. Pension assets are not Wealth in the general concept of the meaning. They are income generators for, in many cases averagely paid individuals who wish to put aside soem of their current earning to support their old age. Subsequent income is fully taxable.


I wouldn't claim to be 'well-versed' on any tax matters, though the basic concepts of wealth tax and income tax are fairly straightforward. 

Yes, I've heard the 'only a deferral' argument again and again, usually coming most strongly from the pensions industry who seem to be absolutely desperate to hang onto a tax relief that they keep saying has little impact. This paradox is hard to get my head around. 

It doesn't really matter what you call your pension fund - you can call it wealth or an income generator or call it Fred if you like. It is a pot of money. If you have a big pot, you pay a lump of tax. If you have a modest pot, you pay a very modest piece of tax. If you have no pot, you don't pay this particular tax.


----------



## orka (24 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> It doesn't really matter what you call your pension fund - you can call it wealth or an income generator or call it Fred if you like. It is a pot of money. If you have a big pot, you pay a lump of tax. If you have a modest pot, you pay a very modest piece of tax. If you have no pot, you don't pay this particular tax.


And if you're a public sector worker, you have a notional pot that is not valued so not taxed - even if it is worth over €1M.  And even if your pot was built up free-free or 'merely' tax-free.


----------



## RainyDay (24 Jun 2014)

orka said:


> And if you're a public sector worker, you have a notional pot that is not valued so not taxed - even if it is worth over €1M.  And even if your pot was built up free-free or 'merely' tax-free.



As it happens, I've spend considerably more time in private sector than public, so my pension assets would be split across both,

But it's not really all about me, is it?


----------



## LDFerguson (24 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> I'm not sure that I fully understand Liam, is there any chance you could spell it out. I guess there are a few options in relation to tax relief;
> 1) Leave as is, with the cap in place
> 2) Restrict it to 'standard rate' tax relief, as has been done for medical expenses and health insurance
> 3) Eliminate it
> ...



Yes they would.  The people who benefit most from the current regime are those who are on 41% tax now but will be on 20% or zero tax in retirement.  So this is the group that would have most to lose by a move to 2) or 3).  Typically people earning mid-€30,000 / €40,000 per year would be on 41% while working but would not be able to accumulate a fund that would be taxed at 41% in retirement.  So this group would be affected most by 2) or 3) above.


----------



## orka (24 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> But it's not really all about me, is it?


I certainly hope not.

But apologies, I meant 'you' as in 'one' so if you (actually you this time...) prefer it in the queen's English, _And if one is a public sector worker, one has a notional pot that is not valued so not taxed - even if it is worth over €1M.  And even if one's pot was built up free-free or 'merely' tax-free_.


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2014)

This isn't about anyone or the public sector. It's about the Government applying a levy on pension funds for no other reason that they can. They didn't touch the tax relief because they knew that this would damage pension coverage. They figured that nobody would really miss a tiny little levy and they were right. People don't understand pensions and don't understand the impact that this levy as well as management charges can have on a 30-40 year investment. It was a sly move that took advantage of people's lack of knowledge. When the pension companies and financial advisors all complained, they got accused of having vested interests. Of course they had but that doesn't mean they weren't right. The levy is due to take in over €500m this year. And done without any real protest compared to property tax or water charges. Mad.


----------



## LDFerguson (24 Jun 2014)

Sunny said:


> The levy is due to take in over €500m this year. And done without any real protest compared to property tax or water charges. Mad.



Agreed.  Which is why I started this thread.  Noonan has said that the levy will be removed after 2015.  I want a many people as possible to see his words (the first post).  I don't trust him to keep his word as he didn't keep it the last time around.  This is my little protest - a pre-emptive strike.


----------



## RainyDay (24 Jun 2014)

Sunny said:


> This isn't about anyone or the public sector. It's about the Government applying a levy on pension funds for no other reason that they can. They didn't touch the tax relief because they knew that this would damage pension coverage. They figured that nobody would really miss a tiny little levy and they were right. People don't understand pensions and don't understand the impact that this levy as well as management charges can have on a 30-40 year investment. It was a sly move that took advantage of people's lack of knowledge. When the pension companies and financial advisors all complained, they got accused of having vested interests. Of course they had but that doesn't mean they weren't right. The levy is due to take in over €500m this year. And done without any real protest compared to property tax or water charges. Mad.



I wouldn't argue with much of that, but really, there wasn't much protest over the property tax or the water charges either. We're not the Greeks or the French. We don't really do protest here.


----------



## Steven Barrett (24 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> So perhaps your "What kind of clowns have we got in charge that will spend that kind of money and not monitor whether it is a success or not? " was just a tad unjustified so?
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno, haven't read it - it's your issue, not my issue.



You post a 60 page document as counter to my post but you don't know what it contains? I think I will save myself the bother.

In relation to your post on being able to promote pensions on its own merits, it can be difficult to do when the government can change how they work all the time. There has been 15 pieces of legislation passed in the last 24 years in relation to pensions, making them more difficult to understand. 


But you are right in one regard, it doesn't matter what people use to save for their retirement, as long as they have something. The problem is, most people don't have anything. 

Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## orka (25 Jun 2014)

LDFerguson said:


> Agreed.  Which is why I started this thread.  Noonan has said that the levy will be removed after 2015.  I want a many people as possible to see his words (the first post).  I don't trust him to keep his word as he didn't keep it the last time around.  This is my little protest - a pre-emptive strike.


Liam, do you not think you are being a bit optimistic in interpreting his words as meaning the levy will be removed after 2015?  What he said in the budget (and repeated in the quote in your first post) was that the levy would be 0.15% in 2014 and 2015 - but he is silent on what happens then.  It could very well continue at 0.15% in 2016 or move to a different % - without him having told any porkies.  I would interpret his 'I have no further plans for changing in this regard' as applying to 2014 and 2015 - i.e. he is not changing what he has already told us about - but again, silent on what lies beyond...

I really can't see it being removed ever - too easy money...


----------



## TRS30 (26 Jun 2014)

orka said:


> Liam, do you not think you are being a bit optimistic in interpreting his words as meaning the levy will be removed after 2015?  What he said in the budget (and repeated in the quote in your first post) was that the levy would be 0.15% in 2014 and 2015 - but he is silent on what happens then.  It could very well continue at 0.15% in 2016 or move to a different % - without him having told any porkies.  I would interpret his 'I have no further plans for changing in this regard' as applying to 2014 and 2015 - i.e. he is not changing what he has already told us about - but again, silent on what lies beyond...
> 
> I really can't see it being removed ever - too easy money...



Good point. 

This could end up been a 'play on words' where he will claim he never intended it to be removed at the end of 2 15 (hate when he does that!) more that he was stating what the levy would be till then. 

I seriously hope I am wrong and with the GE in early 2016 he might well remove in budget 2015 and then reintroduce it in budget 2016!


----------



## LDFerguson (26 Jun 2014)

orka said:


> Liam, do you not think you are being a bit optimistic in interpreting his words as meaning the levy will be removed after 2015?  What he said in the budget (and repeated in the quote in your first post) was that the levy would be 0.15% in 2014 and 2015 - but he is silent on what happens then.  It could very well continue at 0.15% in 2016 or move to a different % - without him having told any porkies.  I would interpret his 'I have no further plans for changing in this regard' as applying to 2014 and 2015 - i.e. he is not changing what he has already told us about - but again, silent on what lies beyond...
> 
> I really can't see it being removed ever - too easy money...



Yes I possibly am being optimistic, or indeed naive to think that a Government Minister would keep his word, given that he didn't before.  And I take your point that he didn't quite say that the levy would end after 2015.  And he didn't quite say that it wouldn't.  

In my view, if you have to hide behind verbal sleight of hand and cunning word-play like this, rather than being open and direct, it says a lot about your character.

He was asked if the levy was going to be continued indefinitely.  That's a fairly straight question.  He replied by saying that he had no plans to change it, thus slithering away from giving the straight answer it deserved.


----------



## 44brendan (26 Jun 2014)

> In my view, if you have to hide behind verbal sleight of hand and cunning word-play like this, rather than being open and direct, it says a lot about your character.
> He was asked if the levy was going to be continued indefinitely. That's a fairly straight question. He replied by saying that he had no plans to change it, thus slithering away from giving the straight answer it deserved.


He should take a lead from Enda and give a straight answer to all direct questions


----------



## noproblem (26 Jun 2014)

One has the distinction of having been fired from the top position, the other is waiting in line for the exact same fate. With Enda, if he waits there until the next election he will not be elected by the voters in Mayo, that will make it interesting indeed.


----------



## Steven Barrett (26 Jun 2014)

LDFerguson said:


> Yes I possibly am being optimistic, or indeed naive to think that a Government Minister would keep his word, given that he didn't before.  And I take your point that he didn't quite say that the levy would end after 2015.  And he didn't quite say that it wouldn't.
> 
> In my view, if you have to hide behind verbal sleight of hand and cunning word-play like this, rather than being open and direct, it says a lot about your character.
> 
> He was asked if the levy was going to be continued indefinitely.  That's a fairly straight question.  He replied by saying that he had no plans to change it, thus slithering away from giving the straight answer it deserved.



Olivia Mitchell said she has been assured that the levy will end in 2015. 

But reading the reply to the Ministerial question, he says:

"This additional levy *within the existing legal framework* will apply to pension fund assets in 2014 and 2015"

You just know he'll create a new legal framework and then claim to have kept it's word. But if it walks like a duck...


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------

