Increase in State pension age to 67 should be delayed by seven years, report to recommend


I agree fully that money in a person's hands will often be recycled back into the economy (unless it's saved) and will generate more revenue for the government both directly and indirectly through taxes, spending on local businesses etc.

I'm not arguing that any State benefits should be cut or withdrawn.

I'm asking - if our additional longevity is going to cost an extra €100,000 per person if looking at my example above, or more if looking further back, then where is this additional money going to come from? If you give someone €100,000 it's not going to be 100% recycled back to the Exchequer unless they give it back. They might save some. They might spend some on products or services abroad that don't benefit the Irish economy. While taking your point about the effect of recycling money, it's only going to be a percentage that will come back. I've no idea what that percentage might be.

If I could see figures that show that Ireland Inc and its net finances have improved faster than the rate of increase in our longevity, I'd be happy to argue to leave the State Pension age alone.
 
Dave Vanian said:
but surely Gross Domestic Product isn't really a valid measure of figuring out how much money a country actually has to spend.
Click to expand...
It more or less is the best measure (technical issues for Ireland aside).

Ultimately societal living standards are about average productivity of people working, and what % of adults work.

PS: states, unlike humans, never have to pay off debt. They just roll it over.
 

Yep - and when that "accounting concept" runs out of money, there's only one source of funds:- the Irish taxpayer.

And the earlier that it's paid, the longer it will have to be paid for and the more that Irish workers will have to pay in taxes to support their parents and grandparents who will have an ever-increasing life expectancy. It's an horrific prospect.

NoRegretsCoyote said:
Overall state capacity to deal with costs of ageing (not just pensions but social care) is the issue here.
Click to expand...

Yep - and the cost of free medical treatment for the over 70s is also going to increase exponentially. It's a nightmare scenario, made worse by the brainless populism of Sinn Fein (among others) who understand about as much about demographics as I do about Quantum Physics.
 
The best indicator is surely the government's tax take. GDP (or arguably gni*) are broad measure of output but that's very different than income required to balance a budget.

65 Vs 68 are arbitrary ages. We're talking 3 years in the greater scheme of things. Both are as old as they want to be. There is a certain element of personal responsibility here. If I don't provide for myself the State of there to provide a basic level of income. But it's my choice to have an additional pension if I want more than the basics. I.e., early retirement.

Of course the grey vote scuppers that personal responsibility. Auto-enrolment for all…
 
The General election was held around sat 8/2/ 2020 do any of the posters know The Issues about raising the age that caught out FF/FG and Labour surely at Least one poster would remember the Issue,
 
kinnjohn said:
The General election was held around sat 8/2/ 2020 do any of the posters know The Issues about raising the age that caught out FF/FG and Labour surely at Least one poster would remember the Issue,
Click to expand...
The issue was SF proposing the pension age remaining at age 65 along with all the other SF freebies.
 
Conan said:
The issue was SF proposing the pension age remaining at age 65 along with all the other SF freebies.
Click to expand...
No that is not correct, While people continue to make incorrect statements about SF
SF will continue to rise in the polls, the above statement and others like it are driving more and more people away from the established parties,


Nothing to do with SF,
I suspect you have nothing to do with pensions or know very little about them,
 
Last edited:
Conan said:
The issue was SF proposing the pension age remaining at age 65 along with all the other SF freebies.
Click to expand...
Raising the retirement age won't save much, if any money.
Huge numbers of people won't be fit to work in many professions. 67 year old firemen? Or roofers? Or any construction workers. Truck drivers? Nurses? Cops? The night shift factory workers, the security guards , the postmen.

How much effort is the 67 year old teacher going to make, with another 30 teenagers messing about in her classroom?

The unemployment rates for 65 year old will just go up.
It's such a massive political disaster, for such a tiny return.
Of course, the people making the decisions might have nice, stimulating, non physical jobs, with pleasant working environments, so that might explain it.

However, the award for the Thickest Brass Neck, must surely go to Mary Hanafin, Mary Harney, Brian Cowen and the fabulous government who first introduced the change in Dail Eireann.................then shuttled off with their massive pensions in their 50's.
 
Who said The state could not afford to pay pension at 65, and shortly after retired on a very good state pension,
Supporters of raising the pension age in most cases are very well set up,
A few years ago It was posted on Askaboutmoney the state forgoes 8 billion a year in tax breaks it was also posted
some time ago most of this tax break gets eaten up in fees and charges,
 
Last edited:
skrooge said:
The best indicator is surely the government's tax take. GDP (or arguably gni*) are broad measure of output but that's very different than income required to balance a budget.
Click to expand...
Also the difference between GDP and GNI* for Ireland are substantial, GNI* (our real productivity when you strip out multinational activities) was actually 40% less than our quoted GDP figures in 2019. Using the figure for GDP is ridiculous for Ireland , we are 40% less productive than we think we are.
 
But the tax take is not 40% less, The problem is it gets squandered on special interest Groups,

If it goes belly up The contributory pension will be far down the list when it comes to cuts,

The established parties and SF know most people who depend on the contributory pension will have figured out they were not responsible for squandered the tax paid in over their life time,
 
Last edited:
kinnjohn said:
it was also posted
some time ago most of this tax break gets eaten up in fees and charges,
Click to expand...

That was just before such claims, while hugely popular among those with a particular agenda, were proven by actual verifiable facts to be utter rubbish. But those with the agenda still try to spread the rumour anyway. Why let facts get in the way of a good story?
 
I don't have any agenda,
But it frightens me that people like yourself who work on the pension side of the Industry
Don't seem to know or remember The Issues around Raising the state pension age that caused FF/FG/Lab to run a mile when confronted about it,
Do You,
 
Wrong. I have worked in the Pensions/Investment world for many years. And you memory of SF majoring on opposing any change in the pension age in the last election is clearly failing you. ML and Pearse made a big issue of this , promising to retain the pension age at 65.
 
Once again
For someone who works in the pension Industry do you know why FF/FG and Labour ran a mile from their decision to raise the pension age,
The Irish Pension Industry Frightens me if you and others can't answer this simple question off the top of your head,
Can you ,
For what it is worth I paid AVC and stayed with a company with a good pension since the 1980s, now retired,
 
Last edited:
The big problem here is that many people still take the 20th century view that retirement is an event, and not a process. In the real world fewer and fewer people are having a big retirement moment. They may retire from a full-time job and do a bit of part time or contractual work. My own parents are gone from their day jobs but still doing bits and pieces of paid work well past 65 and will do so for a while yet. In the US you actually see employment rates of over 20% for men aged between 70 and 74. The US is not very culturally different from Ireland and I believe Ireland will get there some day.

Yes, the age at which state pensions are paid will have to rise. The current approach is too expensive. But a unique focus on retirement age is not helpful. Public policy has to help people to transition from employment to retirement. Policy has to be aware the lower-skilled workers (particularly with a manual background) just don't have the opportunity to keep going like us knowledge workers do. Pensions should be flexible too. It might suit some people to draw down early, and for some to draw down late. Some people could do with partial pensions for a certain age. With the right actuarial adjustments this can all be cost-neutral to the state.

I have no idea what this Commission on Pensions is going to recommend. But I hope they come up with something that isn't just part of a tug-of-war between 65 and 68. They also need to come up with a sustainable method for deciding on pension increases, be it some linkage to inflation or wages or a combination. The "fiver-a-budget" approach to welfare increases of recent years is a really bad way to give out increases which are impossible politically to ever take back. Best approach would be to devolve it to some quango which makes a recommendation every year which the government is expected (but not obliged) to accept on Budget day.
 

You don't have any agenda yet you quote a report that was discredited.

I remember the issues well. I clearly remember Sinn Fein running with the populist promise to keep the State retirement age at 65, but offering no clue as to where the huge expense of this would come from.
 
Surely before the extension of pension age the government should enforce mandatory pensions, this would give a hybrid pension scheme with a minimum private pension pot being used to to fund pension between 65 and 68
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register