Pension age increase to 67 not going ahead in 2021

W

Wahaay

Registered User
Messages
292
Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has told the Sunday Indo he's sticking to his election promise ands agreed with Leo Varadkar this will not now go ahead.
I wonder where this leaves the new Total Contributions Approach with the HomeCaring Credits which were due to kick in this year.
Presumably nothing will be decided until a new government has been formed and legislation passed following months of negotitaions ?
I have a vested interested being 66 next year but without the full 40 years of contributions.A delay would suit me enormously...
 
There's been some rowing back on this from the Varadkar camp since the story appeared.
Which is not a good sign if both leaders can't even get on the same hymn sheet about something as basic as this after weeks of discussions about forming a coalition.
 
This will mostly benefit those who have worked and paid PRSI contributions. Those who never or rarely worked will get a means tested payment anyway. But if you don't qualify for a means tested payment, because you bothered to work and prudently invested a chunk of your income, the extra years wait would have cost you about 12k. A fine reward for a lifetime of working and contributing!

This announcement should be welcomed. A rare case of Social Insurance doing what it says on the tin and not just being yet another tax.
 
Baby boomer said:
This announcement should be welcomed. A rare case of Social Insurance doing what it says on the tin and not just being yet another tax.
Click to expand...

You can't insure against getting old! Life expectancy today is much greater than what was anticipated when you were young. This has to be paid for somehow.

Anyway, the National Pensions Framework 2007 introduced the rather silly approach of having one-year step increases in the pension age. A much better way of doing it would have been to increase by two months a year for twelve years. This would have been more equitable, smoother on the public finances, and wouldn't have generated a large constituency of people feeling that they were losing out a big amount by virtue of being born a few months later than their friends.
 
Agree with NoRegretsCoyote - I was due to have to work 2 extra years by virtue of my parents getting their dates wrong by two weeks...
 
Populist decision and totally unsustainable. The state pension age should be set for a maximum of five years before average life expectancy.
 
ATC110 said:
Populist decision and totally unsustainable. The state pension age should be set for a maximum of five years before average life expectancy.
Click to expand...


If the recent election was anything to go by it would also be an extremely popular decisison.
You never know, this strange new phenomenon of politicians actually doing what they promised to do on the campaign trail might just catch on.
 
Wahaay said:
If the recent election was anything to go by it would also be an extremely popular decisison.
You never know, this strange new phenomenon of politicians actually doing what they promised to do on the campaign trail might just catch on.
Click to expand...
And if they said how such promises will be paid for, that would be even better.
Of course this will be a popular decision with a certain co-hort. Any “free money” is popular. When many of those retiring today first started contributing PRSI towards a future State Pension (say mid 1970’s) the average expected lifespan at 65 was c13 years. But today the actual expected lifespan is c20 years. Indeed, a retiree today at age 65 has a 50% chance of living to age 90 and beyond. And the over 65’s is the fastest growing sector of the population.
 
Hooverfish said:
I was due to have to work 2 extra years by virtue of my parents getting their dates wrong by two weeks...
Click to expand...

Hooverfish - I believe that this is a misrepresentation - can you demonstrate the math please?

Conan said:
Indeed, a retiree today at age 65 has a 50% chance of living to age 90 and beyond. And the over 65’s is the fastest growing sector of the population.
Click to expand...
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Actually it's the over-95s ;)
Click to expand...

What is being said here? Conan, are you saying that if you selected 1,000 65 year olds at random, that 500 would be expected to reach 90?
And NoRegrets, are you raising Conan's 90 to 95?

If that is what you are saying, I'd be very surprised if the data supports this!
 
Cormac lucey was talking about it this morning. Basically it is robbing the pensioners of tomorrow to pay for today's pensions. It is the people working today and retiring in 20 years time that will pay for this
 
joe sod said:
Cormac lucey was talking about it this morning. Basically it is robbing the pensioners of tomorrow to pay for today's pensions. It is the people working today and retiring in 20 years time that will pay for this
Click to expand...

...but by the time the pensioners of tomorrow actually have to pay through lower OAP themselves, this crowd of politicians will be retired themselves, so they won't care...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top