See @Red Helmet's post:The main source of wealth for older people is housing which continues to increase at double-digit rates, still ahead of inflation.
In addition, where would older people move to? There is a housing shortage.It is also difficult to benefit from downsizing, unless your house is very expensive( and so having a large enough margin over the new property) when you take into account the costs involved including furniture, decoration etc etc and not forgetting the hassle of moving if you are happy in your own home.
I think the norm of older people being poorer is about to be restored. Things have changed fundamentally with the return of inflation.I don't think anyone is worried about them having too much.
The discussion is about social and economic policies that are built on the false assumption that all or most older people are poor.
We're aa long long way from that but if it does happen then we should readjust our economic and social policies accordingly.I think the norm of older people being poorer is about to be restored.
If you don't have enough contributions you get a reduced pension, the PRSI is paid to contribute to pension, why should a person pay PRSI a 2nd time on what they contributedThat's because as a cohort they are rich and under taxed. There was a time when they were poor and needed support and we constructed our taxation and welfare structure accordingly. Now they are rich and don't need those supports but the structures remain the same.
A far more targeted approach is necessary. Things like free travel and medical cards should be means tested. They should pay the full rate of PRSI since it's very unlikely that they contributed enough to fund their State pension over their working life. Social transfers should be given to those who needs them, not to those who don't.
I'm sure there'll be lots of the usual "I/they worked hard all their life" entitled nonsense in response.
I agree. My issue is that social and taxation policy presumes that all retirees are poor. That is certainly not the case.
Leaving aside that retirees are at a relativity high risk of poverty or social exclusion, it violates the basic principles of taxation of equality and neutrality if you look for certain socio-economic groups or other categories who you can then soak for taxes. Taxation should be neutral and should not be geared towards penalizing particular social groups, just because they are perceived as ‘less poor than they were in the past’, etc., or because you just don’t like them.I think the norm of older people being poorer is about to be restored.
No they are not.Leaving aside that retirees are at a relativity high risk of poverty or social exclusion
I've worked 7 days a week as well.
My first wage in 1973 was 8 pounds a week.
Most People now have stuff, too much of it, that they don't need we had nothing in the 60's and 70's.
Where I am living now there were people living in mud huts against a ditch in the 1960's in Ireland.
Ah will you stop it, i grew up in the 60s in a brand new bungalow, i knew no one living in a mud hut against a ditch, thats famine era stuff
I agree. It should be neutral. It certainly shouldn’t be giving lower rates to well off people simply by virtue of their age.Leaving aside that retirees are at a relativity high risk of poverty or social exclusion, it violates the basic principles of taxation of equality and neutrality if you look for certain socio-economic groups or other categories who you can then soak for taxes. Taxation should be neutral and should not be geared towards penalizing particular social groups, just because they are perceived as ‘less poor than they were in the past’, etc., or because you just don’t like them.
Sorry, I probably should have been clearer. For many people the contributions they made, while all that was asked of them, were insufficient to fund their State pension. Basically PRSI rates are too low.If you don't have enough contributions you get a reduced pension, the PRSI is paid to contribute to pension,
One mud hut is not reminiscent of the living conditions in Kerry in the 1960s. My parents built a four bedroom bungalow in the early 60s with the modern bathroom and palour of the era, in fact all the houses in our rural area were built of block or stone. Didnt the government embark on a massive social housing program in the 50s where thousands of houses were built all over the country in towns and rural areas.If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there.
Then as now people view things from their own situation and often don't see the poverty that surrounds them.If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there
And what about the tax rates?Sorry, I probably should have been clearer. For many people the contributions they made, while all that was asked of them, were insufficient to fund their State pension. Basically PRSI rates are too low.
What about them?And what about the tax rates?
OK!What about them?
Sorry, I don't know what you asked in your previous post me or what that means.
If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there.
A county full of John the Baptist's.After all, if everyone in Kerry had been living in mud huts and eating roadkill and raw insects, then it wouldn't have been worth a picture.
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?