That is precisely the problem with pensions policy in this state.Everything could have changed by then, so why bother worrying about it now? What exactly can you do to change matters now, nothing.
Given that your pension is co-ordinated and that the state pension age is rising it is most likely that any pension you may be able to draw at 60 will not include the state pension amount.My current understanding is that if I retire at age 60, provided I don't work in PRSIable employment, my employer makes up the difference, and then from 65 to 68, my employer makes up the difference regardless of whether I work in PRSIable employment or not.
OP certainly did not suggest he will base his entire pension plans on opinions from here.Sorry I seem to have mislaid my crystal ball.
Any thoughts anyone might have on an internet forum to base your entire pension plans on are worthless.
Given that your pension is co-ordinated and that the state pension age is rising it is most likely that any pension you may be able to draw at 60 will not include the state pension amount.
You, and public servants in a similar position, might argue that you have an accrued right to the whole of your pension from 60. I doubt that you would win legally since ALL state pension contributors are being equally disadvantaged by the raising of the state pension age.
The remainder of your rights from 60 are also contentious, given that the government is considering an OECD report advocating serving public servants' pension ages be raised in line with those of new entrants. I would judge you have a far stronger case here, given that you seem to have paid for the non-co-ordinated bit of your pension on the contractual basis it is payable to you at 60 so you would seem to have an accrued right to it.
If they effect such a change it might merely be prospective from the date of the change so you could end up with part of your pension payable at 60, the remainder of it (plus the state pension amount) to become payable at 68 or whatever.
If you're planning now I do think you should assume that the best case is that you will be down a minimum of 8 years worth of state pension equivalent if you hope to retire at 60.
Of course this is all predicated on the notion that the state will be solvent by the time of your retirement.
OP certainly did not suggest he will base his entire pension plans on opinions from here.
This is a forum for the exchange of vews and opinions, dereko1969.
We like to think we may be able to clarify our thinking with the help of our fellow posters and we're sorry if that notion offends you.
We also like to keep things polite.
I work in the public service, and am a "post-1995" person who pays A1 PRSI. My pension is made up of my public service pension and also my social welfare pension. My minimum retirement age is 60 (reached in 2027) and I must contractually retire at 65 (reached in 2032).
My current understanding is that if I retire at age 60, provided I don't work in PRSIable employment, my employer makes up the difference, and then from 65 to 68, my employer makes up the difference regardless of whether I work in PRSIable employment or not.
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?