Appealing to voters over the age of 50 twice as important as appealing to 18 to 34 year olds!

[Brendan Burgess]

Interesting article by a director of IPSOS MRBI

Election not a ‘youthquake’ but desire for change across electorate

Motivating sizeable vote aged 50 and older provided SF with unprecedented success

www.irishtimes.com

However, successful political campaigns are built upon appealing to those most likely to turn out and vote. Not only are there are more people in Ireland aged 50 and older than there are aged between 18 and 34, but also older voters are more likely to turn out on election day. For every vote cast by those aged under 35, there are roughly two votes cast by those aged 50 and older.

It is only when this older group is convinced by a particular argument that electoral success will follow. This was the case in the eighth amendment referendum, when those aged over 50 voted as a whole in favour of repeal.

It was also the case in the recent general election, with over 50s voting for change.

 

[Leper]

Interesting Article. And for the record most of us over 65's can have the wool pulled over our eyes for only so long and then we protest, like in the recent general election. "You fool me once, shame on you - you fool me twice, shame on me" comes to mind.

 

[Purple]

Parties win elections by buying off particular groups of people. In other words people generally vote based on self interest.
It's human nature, "We need to solve the housing crisis but don't build social housing or apartments near my house" "We need to fund social services more but I want a tax cut" "The State's unfunded pension liability is unsustainable but I want to retire at 65".
Older people are probably less idealistic than young people and so more easily bought off. Pensions gave the Shinners a big boost here in the last election just like the fear of losing them probably cost Scotland it's freedom a few years ago.

 

[Firefly]

Pensions gave the Shinners a big boost here in the last election just like the fear of losing them probably cost Scotland it's freedom a few years ago.

And as people are living longer & longer, I would expect a young vs old situation to take shape in the years to come....

 

[josh8267]

And as people are living longer & longer, I would expect a young vs old situation to take shape in the years to come....

Not so sure about that , The younger people will have no one to blame other than themselves for not insisting on part of there taxes being put aside to forward fund future pension liabilities by the state, Right now it is the older generation who seam to be interested in the state forward funding the state pension,
Right now there are more younger people than retirees now is there time to do something about it seeing they have the numbers to do so,

The other thing is you will not find a tow bar on a hearse , just like now the well off come out to vote don't care about anyones future but there own,

 

[Leper]

And as people are living longer & longer, I would expect a young vs old situation to take shape in the years to come....

I don't know what you mean by this. But, nearly 100 years into the founding of Ireland Ltd, many are beginning to think, for a change. Political parties can't take any group of people for granted anymore. People are standing up to governments too. And about time . . .

 

[Purple]

The younger people will have no one to blame other than themselves for not insisting on part of there taxes being put aside to forward fund future pension liabilities by the state

Their current PRSI contributions, as well as a good chunk of their other taxes, go towards paying the pensions of people who are currently retired. If that money was used to fund their own future liability then there would be nothing left to pay the pensions of those who are currently retired.

 

[Firefly]

I don't know what you mean by this.

More & more taxes will be going to those in retirement as opposed to public services

 

[WolfeTone]

The State pension is a public service.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Their current PRSI contributions, as well as a good chunk of their other taxes, go towards paying the pensions of people who are currently retired. If that money was used to fund their own future liability then there would be nothing left to pay the pensions of those who are currently retired.

You are comparing to a privately funded pension plan.
The annual national budget contains an element of capital expenditure. This results in the State accumulating a vast capital tax base including such things as our motorway network and other infrastructure. It has also built up significant human capital through the education system. These State assets can be considered as the "pension fund" built up out of past taxation. Taxation of current workers should therefore be seen at least in part as paying rent on the assets built up by their elders - it is unfortunate that the optics of Pay As You Go give the illusion that there are (unfair) intergenerational transfers.

 

[Sunny]

You are comparing to a privately funded pension plan.
The annual national budget contains an element of capital expenditure. This results in the State accumulating a vast capital tax base including such things as our motorway network and other infrastructure. It has also built up significant human capital through the education system. These State assets can be considered as the "pension fund" built up out of past taxation. Taxation of current workers should therefore be seen at least in part as paying rent on the assets built up by their elders - it is unfortunate that the optics of Pay As You Go giving the illusion that there are (unfair) intergenerational transfers.

That's a really interesting point Duke and one I have to admit, I haven't heard before.

 

[josh8267]

You are comparing to a privately funded pension plan.
The annual national budget contains an element of capital expenditure. This results in the State accumulating a vast capital tax base including such things as our motorway network and other infrastructure. It has also built up significant human capital through the education system. These State assets can be considered as the "pension fund" built up out of past taxation. Taxation of current workers should therefore be seen at least in part as paying rent on the assets built up by their elders - it is unfortunate that the optics of Pay As You Go giving the illusion that there are (unfair) intergenerational transfers.

I agree with you up to a point ,in the future it may/will not be possible to turn these assets to fund future pension unless we forward fund,

the state need to bring fairness in PRSI Contributions and use a % to forward fund future state pensions, I suspect people will have no problem with the state forward funding pensions once it is seen to be fair,
All parties will have to deal with bringing fairness into the state contribution for pension purposes the sooner the start the better,I Will only ever vote for the party I think will face up to the problem ,

Right now I suspect FF/FG/LAB/SF and Independents, are afraid to do so because the will have to increase contributions on there main support base,
The greens are our only hope at present, If I was in Ireland for the last vote I would have voted for them ,

 

[WolfeTone]

Excellent point @Duke of Marmalade.

 

[Purple]

You are comparing to a privately funded pension plan.
The annual national budget contains an element of capital expenditure. This results in the State accumulating a vast capital tax base including such things as our motorway network and other infrastructure. It has also built up significant human capital through the education system. These State assets can be considered as the "pension fund" built up out of past taxation. Taxation of current workers should therefore be seen at least in part as paying rent on the assets built up by their elders - it is unfortunate that the optics of Pay As You Go giving the illusion that there are (unfair) intergenerational transfers.

Yea, kind of. The reality is that road etc cost money to maintain and don't generate direct income. The income they do generate is taken in the form of income taxes from the working people who use them as well as VAT etc which everyone pays. That tax is used to pay the pensions of those who are retired. Most people, retired or working, are and always have been, net recipients from the State.

If an element of the tax taken is a rent on those assets it still makes up a very small proportion of the cost of funding State pension liabilities.

 

[Purple]

The State pension is a public service.

They are indeed but should they suck up so much money at the expense of other public services such as health?

 

[Sophrosyne]

You are comparing to a privately funded pension plan.
The annual national budget contains an element of capital expenditure. This results in the State accumulating a vast capital tax base including such things as our motorway network and other infrastructure. It has also built up significant human capital through the education system. These State assets can be considered as the "pension fund" built up out of past taxation. Taxation of current workers should therefore be seen at least in part as paying rent on the assets built up by their elders - it is unfortunate that the optics of Pay As You Go giving the illusion that there are (unfair) intergenerational transfers.

Excellent post.

 

[josh8267]

They are indeed but should they suck up so much money at the expense of other public services such as health?

Failure by all past Governments to be fair to all Pay Related Social Insurance contributions classes ,Has resulted in extra PRSI loaded on to high earners and all earned income groups ,
They parties including Independent are afraid to take on the people who get away paying only a small amount of prsi,for there pension,

Yes the pension Issue is beginning to heat up not before its time, I would say some of the main parties are wetting themselves thinking about all the unfairness in relation to pensions to surface at the next few general elections,
It has wiped out the so called Labour party for allowing it to happen on there watch,

 

[Purple]

As Brendan pointed out in another thread Regina Doherty's decision to extend the social welfare benefits to the self employed will cost nearly half a billion a year by 2025. That's the cost of the National Children's hospital every 3-4 years.
We are drowning and we don't realise it yet.