Is Regina Doherty hinting that contributory pensions might be lowered if the person doesn't need them?

Sarenco said:
Except the Minister didn't actually say that - you added your own quotation marks.
Click to expand...
I simply quoted from Mr. Burgess's post # 1 "It is not “fair” that some older people receive State pensions that are more than they need while others on the same amount live in poverty, Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty has said."
The quotation marks around 'fair' are in the original post.
 
Going on what she seems to be saying she's going to take a massive cut in her pension. But, but, maybe she's not implicating the TD's/ministers in her silly diatribe? In any case, she's wasting her time if she thinks she'll get the better of the grey brigade.
 
What diatribe?

Have you actually listened to the interview that Brendan posted?
 
Indeed I have Sarenco, i'm also very aware of how the media work and how the little sprat is thrown out there by the minister, in order to see what sort of bite there is. One can interpret what the minister said in many different ways, your choice is yours and your opinion is very important , just like everyone else's.
 
Fair enough but what exactly did the Minister say that is giving you cause for concern?

She specifically said that the State contributory pension would remain the "cornerstone" of our pension system, with the intention that it would continue at roughly 34% of average earnings.

To be honest, I think this entire thread is built on an unfortunate journalistic flourish by the IT. Silly season stuff.
 
PMU said:
It appears to be the start of a process to means-test the state pension
Click to expand...
Really? That's just a piece of journalistic speculation that concludes:
"In light of this, what Ms Doherty may have been alluding to is an end to the gravy train of universal State pension increases...."

The Minister never suggested abolishing the State (Contributory) Pension (which would just leave the means-tested non-contributory pension).

Incidentally, I would have no problem in principle with the OECD suggestion that there should be a less generous universal pension for all, with a mean-tested top up for those in need.
 
And what is your standard of measurement for "those in need" Sarenco? I could have a house or an apartment worth a huge amount of money and barely any income and that's just for starters. Ms Doherty should have kept her gob shut on this one if as you say she didn't mean anything untoward. However, not for the first time she's stirring the pot, or attempting to do so.
 
noproblem said:
And what is your standard of measurement for "those in need" Sarenco?
Click to expand...
What does it matter? I don't make the rules.

I simply suggested that I wouldn't have a problem, in principle, with the OECD proposal (which, incidentally, has not been adopted as Government policy).
noproblem said:
However, not for the first time she's stirring the pot, or attempting to do so.
Click to expand...
Ok, can you tell what exactly the Minister said in the Newstalk interview that you take issue with?
 
Sarenco said:
What does it matter? I don't make the rules.

I simply suggested that I wouldn't have a problem, in principle, with the OECD proposal (which, incidentally, has not been adopted as Government policy).

Ok, can you tell what exactly the Minister said in the Newstalk interview that you take issue with?
Click to expand...

I'm not in any way wanting this to be a personal feud between your good self and me Sarenco. What the minister said or didn't say is seldom spoken of, but its interpreted in a certain way be that good, bad, or indifferent. If one is to go on what she said it all looks harmless and that the Goverment is looking into how to make it fairer. That's grand and shouldn't be in any way threatening to anyone really. It's just that some people get stirred by even mention of a dabble into the OAP, hence the attack before even any type of onslaught is begun. By the way I never said I took issue with what she said, but it may have come across as that. One's interpretation so to speak ;)
 
Sarenco said:
Incidentally, I would have no problem in principle with the OECD suggestion that there should be a less generous universal pension for all, with a mean-tested top up for those in need.
Click to expand...
I agree. We are heading for disaster when it comes to State pensions. I’d like to see a move to more private pensions and away from the current Ponzi scheme we have masquerading as a State pensions policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top