No doubt about it, but the state pension will be obsolete in years to come.
Many people have said that.
Yet the State Pension has survived.
I say that it will be reformed, yes, but not obsolete.
No doubt about it, but the state pension will be obsolete in years to come.
We cannot afford the state pension at its current levels and coverage.
So it will have to be means tested.
Has nobody asked the obvious ? What do we pay PRSI and USC for ? If they abolish this then it's a good idea.
You are basically suggesting an end to Social Insurance.
You are suggesting that at some stage PRSI will be scrapped, or reduced, as it will no longer fund a State Pension.
I am suggesting the very opposite!
We are not paying in enough for the benefits being paid out.
So we should increase the contribution levels dramatically and make the benefits depend on the size of the pot contributed - much the same as any other pension scheme but with a side portion of insurance.
In contrast, the approach I'm advocating is an administrative dawdle.
I am thinking long-term.
Equity Risk Premium (ERP)
With the gaps they still have to fill in, they will be lucky be up and running in time. Sounds like they're going to attempt to use the existing market players with an extra layer of bureaucracy on top. How will they get them on board in time?
Steven. You're absolutely right. Furthermore, it's going to cost them a fortune in consulting fees to make that discovery. That's why I'm suggesting one account for everyone, with one set of trustees to look after it all, no investment choice, no need to manage unit-holdings in different funds, etc.Building a central processing unit that can be used with all the different provider's computer system will be no mean feat.
Gosh, Brendan, you're being hard on me! In a nutshell, I'm making the very simple point that, if you're prepared to take a risk with your money, you'll get a bigger return in the long-term. Otherwise, why bother taking a risk in the first place? But that extra return comes with a hefty price tag. You could lose a lot in the short-term, and the "short-term" could extend to a number of years. Smoothing the return over many years eliminates that hefty price tag and really does give a free lunch to contributors.It really has to be simple language.
If it applies to many, many workers, and overall disposable income falls, then house prices will have to fall also, to meet the new, lower borrowing power.
The costs of building houses are already way too high and should fall anyways.
Absolutely agree.The plan as it stands is far too complicated
Fluctuating market values are no concern in a fund with positive cash for the next 20, 30 years or longer. Why attach such importance to market values of assets that won't be sold?