Raising the Retirement Age

D

dewdrop

Registered User
Messages
1,298
I am amused when i hear all the moaning about the possible increase in the retirement age. When i was a young fella people got their pensions when they reached 70 (known as OLD age pension) and as for free travel you just walked.
 
I am just a few years away from my mid 60's. I don't like the idea that the goalposts are being moved. They have done this with the VHI with higher increases in certain popular schemes etc.
 
Oireachtas pensions should not be payable until the date of eligibility for the OAP. Anyone claiming it before that date should have a pro-rata reduction.
 
TarfHead said:
Oireachtas pensions should not be payable until the date of eligibility for the OAP. Anyone claiming it before that date should have a pro-rata reduction.
Click to expand...

I agree.
What about judges? They often have years of service given to them for their pension calculation.
 
Purple said:
What about judges?
Click to expand...

Haven't given them any thought. My earlier post reflects my opinion that any system that allows Mary Coughlan to be in receipt of a pension, while still in her 40s, is a flawed system. Ivan Yates too. There may be others, those 2 are the most high-profile examples.
 
TarfHead said:
Oireachtas pensions should not be payable until the date of eligibility for the OAP. Anyone claiming it before that date should have a pro-rata reduction.
Click to expand...
+1

Of course it'll be one rule for them and another for the rest of us.
 
I know several guards who retired in their early fifties all of whom went on to work in other areas. Hate to see a young guard on desk duty stamping passports when he could be out on the beat.
 
Purple said:
What about judges? They often have years of service given to them for their pension calculation.
Click to expand...
I am normally quite critical of over-generous pension provision, particularly when it is not appreciated by the recipients what a good deal they are actually getting but I don't have a problem with judges' pensions. Yes, they are given very good pension with very short service but this is probably one of the factors that induce them to take up the positions in the first place. Many are coming from very high-earning private practice and may be taking very substantial income reductions; factoring in the very generous pension provision may be what sways their decision (effectively they may be receiving notional compensation of 2x or 3x their annual salary - but this may still be below their old incomes). You also need to bear in mind that they are not permitted to return to legal practice once they have made the jump to being a judge so changing their terms would be particularly unfair as they are perhaps the only people unable to revert to the profession they originally trained for and where they could have continued making substantial incomes. On the whole, we have an excellent judiciary and I would hate to see the profession becoming less attractive to the best legal minds.
 
I'm toying with the notion of foregoing retirement as a concept. My workplace dont employ beyond age 60 - and the thought of being taken back in some other capacity 'as a favour' or 'subject to the whim of someone' doesnt appeal to me, I'm decades away from that but, touch wood & taking into account current good health, family history & general life expectancy rates, if I keep my ticker looked after I could expect to see 85 or more.

I have low expectations from my private pension (am paying down debt rather than agressively funding pension), they'll probably have worked out that I dont deserve the contributory pension when the time comes, so 25+ years of scraping around doesnt appeal to me.

I think I'll have to cut the workplace cord at age 50 - 55 (should be then debt free, kids more or less through college) , go self-employed, get a 'phase 2' career for 20 years or so up to age 75 - probably something easier (or less volume/lower level - my job is not physical in nature) than what I'm currently at (I dont imagine I'll still be all guns blazing at 70). Waiting until 60 to branch out is probably leaving it too late.

I know it could be all change by next year and there are no long term certainties but I suppose no harm to be thinking.......................
 
Betsy Og,

I don’t like the idea of working a regular week up to 65 (or 68) and then one day just stopping. Many people need routine and slow change. If they’ve worked somewhere for years then their employer should accommodate them in whatever way they can. It’s beneficial for the organisation and it’s the right thing to do.

Where I work we accommodate people close to retirement age so that they can work shorter and more flexible hours. That might mean every morning or 3 mornings a week or 10-20 hours a week whenever it suits them (by agreement with the people they work with). Why would any organisation want to lose that level of experience and “tribal knowledge”?
 
Purple said:
Betsy Og,

Where I work we accommodate people close to retirement age so that they can work shorter and more flexible hours. That might mean every morning or 3 mornings a week or 10-20 hours a week whenever it suits them (by agreement with the people they work with). Why would any organisation want to lose that level of experience and “tribal knowledge”?
Click to expand...

I can see that side but, from the point of the individual, there is no great certainty of tenure, they will tell you when you are surplus. I think maybe at that stage I'll have had enough of taking orders and if I want to work when I'm 75 then that's what I'll do. (I'm not against taking it easy, but this 'clinking wine glasses on a yacht as the sun sets' - the pension industry ad - I'm far from confident it'll come to pass).

Maybe with the whole internet age, timezone differential etc,. someone would be able to do 3 or 4 hours of 'crunching' from home of a morning for a US Co and leave it at that - "employer" wouldnt care if you've 2 heads as long as the work gets done on time to the required standard. Maybe there would be a different employer every day. This might sound a bit far fetched now but they've got 25 years to develop it to that stage !! :D
 
ok, It's just the talk of having 25 years left to get to work that way at 75.
I thought you were younger than that though.
 
Purple said:
ok, It's just the talk of having 25 years left to get to work that way at 75.
I thought you were younger than that though.
Click to expand...

I suppose I was more thinking that when in the 60+ bracket (or before) it might be a feasible working model that's well established.

For instance I know of several people who work from remote part of rural Ireland for cutting edge companies (Google type companies), so its not entirely fanciful that it will filter down to more normal companies/roles in due course.
 
While on holidays recently I met up with a group of 70+ year olds. 3 of these were still working part-time at age 73 and enjoying it. Very interesting people I might add
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top