Unless I missed it, I don't believe any of that sum came from the NPRF.
Massive amount of money, for sure, but I don't think it really has anything to do with the topic under discussion.
What do you think is the best way to address the looming pension crisis?
Bring back smoking, and further disprove the healthcare systemWhat do you think is the best way to address the looming pension crisis?
The biggest difficulty here is the number of pension schemes that are "opt in" rather than "opt out". I.e. Workers upon joining a firm are given the option of joining the pension plan. In such a scenario the vast majority of employees will put the issue on the long finger. They see the benefits of saving for a pension but also look at the fact that funds will be deducted from their salary now which will only benefit them in 20/30 years time. Human nature being what it is most will decide that they would prefer/need the funds now and have plenty of time to put aside funds for a pension. Old age seems a lifetime away when your young!My own view is there needs to be a sustained campaign to educate people around the misery they face in retirement if they don't plan.
For the record I'm pretty sure the state pension age is only going from 65 to 68, at least in what's announced anyway. I think it should go up at least another 2 years, once each 7 years as currently scheduled and then in line with lifespan advances, which are probably rising at a faster rate anyway!The State pension age is already rising to 70.
Mandatory employer contributions would cripple small businesses.
My own view is there needs to be a sustained campaign to educate people around the misery they face in retirement if they don't plan.
Around means testing etc, imagine telling someone on €250k a year that his 4% and his employer's 10.75% will yield him nothing on the pension side...Ireland, a great place to be a waster, but an awful place to do your best in.
For the record I'm pretty sure the state pension age is only going from 65 to 68, at least in what's announced anyway. I think it should go up at least another 2 years, once each 7 years as currently scheduled and then in line with lifespan advances, which are probably rising at a faster rate anyway!
(P.S. I see the Irish Times article says once every decade but I think that's too slow).
And ANY increase cripples small businesses, with lead in times this should be factored into their wage discussions with staff. Note I said mandatory MATCHED contributions so the employee has responsibility here too.
+1 on your final point but we've proven as a nation that these sort of pronouncements in public have generally met with little (political/societal) support.
My employer won't allow me work on so what do you do with retirees who retire at 65 but cannot avail of the pension till 70.
Rob I think very few would agree with your view on raising the state pension age. It might suit the Government but the ordinary worker wouldn't buy it. Currently I have to retire at 65 but for me State pension is not available till 68. My employer won't allow me work on so what do you do with retirees who retire at 65 but cannot avail of the pension till 70.
I think this is one of the key problems with simply increasing the retirement age as a solution to this issue (although I certainly agree that it has to form part of the mix of policy responses).
The harsh reality is a substantial number of individuals will not be in a position to work past 65 for a variety of reasons and will often be entitled to other social welfare benefits in the interim period before they are entitled to draw a State pension. So the savings to the social fund by simply increasing the retirement age may not actually be as significant as it might first appear.
The biggest difficulty here is the number of pension schemes that are "opt in" rather than "opt out". I.e. Workers upon joining a firm are given the option of joining the pension plan. In such a scenario the vast majority of employees will put the issue on the long finger. They see the benefits of saving for a pension but also look at the fact that funds will be deducted from their salary now which will only benefit them in 20/30 years time. Human nature being what it is most will decide that they would prefer/need the funds now and have plenty of time to put aside funds for a pension. Old age seems a lifetime away when your young!
Most pension advisors would state that a simple change in schemes where the employee is automatically enrolled into the pension scheme upon taking up employment and must sign a opt out form including a "health warning" would result in a significantly higher level of personal pensions and resultant less demand on the public pension in retirement.
There has also been a major change in working years since retirement at 65 was input as the norm. Given that 3rd level is now more the norm than the exception for most occupations the entry age to the workplace is nearing 24/25. When I started work it was 18! Taking into account also the increase in lifespan and healthcare improvements 65 is now the new 55. There is no reason why anyone who is in good health should need to retire at 65. There is a need for a rethink on the current process of working full time from age 24/25 to age 65 and then just retiring and spending the rest of one's life waiting for death (ok I know it's not quite like that!!). There is plenty of scope to scale back work from early 60's and health permitting work on to at least 70. This could be a few days a week or job sharing or working part time from home etc. There are very many people of retirement age who while having no desire to keep on a full time employment with all of the stresses and strains would welcome an opportunity to continue work on a part time basis and maintaining a lower income level. The State could but some incentive system in place for employer to introduce this practice. It would not necessarily result in a promotion block for younger employees as those staying could be moved from their current positions and would be on reduced level of salaries.I was thinking that - but isn't that an issue with the schemes in question, rather than the macro position? And with increased life expectancy doesn't the number of healthy years increase too (i.e. more people can work more years)?
There is no reason why anyone who is in good health should need to retire at 65.
Creativity is not necessary in many jobs though.I suppose it depends on the occupation - I don't think I'd fancy digging ditches in my dotage!
I think we also have to acknowledge that our ability to innovate or think creatively generally declines with age. I think it's pretty well established that creative output climaxes around our late 30s or early 40s, and then undergoes a slow decline as we age. A person's best work tends to appear at roughly the same age as their output peaks.
But as less people are born / entering the work force so one could imagine that increasing the retirement age will also help in tackling this problem.Youth unemployment (or under-employment) is a significant issue in most developed economies. If older workers continue to occupy positions that could otherwise be filled by younger workers, we could be denying these younger workers an opportunity to contribute at a time when their creative productivity is at its peak. At a societal level, we could therefore be exacerbating, rather than alleviating, the core problem by simply retaining older workers in the workforce for ever longer time periods.
Ultimately, we will have to accept that retaining the State pension at its current level will be unsustainable in the future. The only question remaining in my mind is whether the necessary adjustment is started now or whether the entire adjustment is left to borne by future retirees.
Indexing of welfare payments favoured by Varadkar
"Indexing social welfare payments is favoured by Minister for Social Protection Leo Varadkar who said it will protect the less well-off and he hopes to bring in legislation to that effect.
...
He hopes to secure cross-party support for legislation to that effect and bring it through the Oireachtas, the minister said."
And the shocking thing is that he may well get cross-party support for it. Not one TD will oppose this ridiculous proposal.
Less a Damascene conversion than a conversion on the road to the Taoiseach's office perhaps
Whatever happened to the Leo despised by all on the left & hugely distrusted by Trade Unions ?
In any event - welcome aboard Brother !
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?