He believes that there is a good chance that the state pension will be not existent by that time so therefore is an unreliable source of income.
This is complete nonsense, and self serving at that.
You absolutely should plan on the basis that the state pension will not be there for you. .......
If I were 42, I would not factor in the receipt of a pension in 26 years' time into my financial planning.
Brendan
Are you arguing that a person with full PRSI contributions will not receive any contributory state pension in the 2040s?
It would be useful if you and other contributors could clarify what they mean.
It might indeed be prudent to work out planning no's on the assumption that the State Pension might not be there, but it's also equally prudent to assume its equivalent will be in place. People shouldn't have to plan on assumptions that are nothing more than mere speculation and keeping a business in place to line the pockets of interested parties, ie, the pension industry. I could just as easily say that regardless of what you've paid in you might get absolutely nothing back, or far from what is assumed, apart from the tax incentive which can be cut at the drop of a pen by the Govt. When a worker pays in a huge amount of money from their wages/salaries over many years into an investment/pension there should be controls on the people/industry that manages that money to ensure they get off their butts and are seen to be very active indeed in earning any commissions, etc, and should also have targets to meet for the amount that's entrusted to them. Just my opinion, but people like to know they're going to get at least X amount and that is what's frightening people about putting money into pensions, or at least it's one of the major stumbling blocks on the pension saga road.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?