State Pension 67 in 2021, 68 in 2028

Indo:

"As the backlash grows over the pension age rise, it has been confirmed that public service employees can retire at the age of 63 and get a supplemental pension until the State pension kicks in at 67.

In contrast, private sector workers who are legally obliged to retire at 65 are unable to claim the State pension until a later date as the State contributory pension is now only paid from the age of 67.

The State (PRSI) pension age is due to go to 68 next year, prompting a scramble by politicians to promise to row back on the plans as the issue comes during on the doorsteps during canvassing in the General Election."
 
It shows either remarkable foresight by the Unions involved who negotiated supplementary pensions back in 1995 or blind luck !
 
Anyone know what funds supplemental pensions? PRSI fund or coming from overall pay bill for public servants?
 
Public service Pensions and any Supplementary Pension are totally UNFUNDED. They are paid out of general taxation (which partly explains why the "cost" rarely gets any focus).
 
Do PS workers not make a pension contribution from their wages? Also, do they not pay the Pension Related Deduction (PRD) - now morphed into the Additional Superannuation Contribution (ASC). And do they not also pay full PRSI (post '95 anyway) for state benefits, same as everyone else?
 

PS employees shouldn't need a supplementary pension because they should be receiving their full pension entitlement from their employer.

When they reach state pension age, their full pension entitlement, which is payable by their employer, should be reduced by the rate of the State contributory pension.

It is that simple.
 


What's with the 63? Does that apply to people on the post 2004 scheme?

As I understand it, the post 95, but pre 2004 PS workers can avail of the Supplementary pension at age 60.

Most people retiring over the next 10/15 years will be either pre 95 workers or post 95 workers, but pre 2004 scheme.

I read the article but can't find any explanation as to why the age 63 is mentioned.
 
Conan said:
Public service Pensions and any Supplementary Pension are totally UNFUNDED. They are paid out of general taxation (which partly explains why the "cost" rarely gets any focus).
Click to expand...

Exactly and one has to wonder why PS employees are being forced to go on the dole for 9 months and then apply for this payment and all to receive the very same pension that they are entitled to, just like their pre-1995 counterparts.
 
Pre1995 public service hires generally pay B or D PRSI (modified contributions) and do not qualify for a State SW Pension. Their occupational pension represents their full entitlement.
Post 1995 hires are generally A PRSI contributors so their occupational pension is reduced by the expectation that they will receive a State SW Pension. So if they retire at 65 or earlier that's where the Supplementary Pension comes in to bridge the gap to age 66.
 
Post 95 pay PRSI and get their pension partly funded by the standard oap -through the PRSI fund.
My question would be on the supplemental, ideally that wouldn't be coming from the PRSI fund - in the interest of fairly calculating OAP age on the basis of pressure on that fund.

I believe it isn't coming from the fund, but be good to see something official confirming that.

A secondary question would be does the government pay employers PRSI for ALL its employees. I'd always assumed it did but back when the government were estimating savings from salary cuts I noticed they weren't including employer's PRSI savings. Possibly just an error, but suspicious.
 
PS supplementary pensions do not come from the PRSI fund.

And, just to note, there will be no supplementary pension for post 2013 entrants (Single Scheme).
 

I have to disagree with you because as Deiseblue very astutely points out:

"It shows either remarkable foresight by the Unions involved who negotiated supplementary pensions back in 1995 or blind luck !"

The supplementary pension goes back to 1995, when the pension age was 65, it was not created for this purpose.

Just add here that the mechanism for bridging the gap, according to many, from 65 to 66, was introduced years before the gap existed.
 
Last edited:
Post 95 PS workers pay considerably more towards the portion of their pension that comprises the state pension. They pay A rate PRSI and a significant pension contribution (circa 14% of salary.) This is often ignored in the media when they try to whip up another backlash against PS workers.
 
the anger is now real........It is a serious blow to FG chances to stay in power to maintain their stance on increasing the State Pension age. The Supp pension has been a particular bug bear of mine for some years and raised with the Pensions Ombudsman.
 
hunter1 said:
Exactly and one has to wonder why PS employees are being forced to go on the dole for 9 months and then apply for this payment and all to receive the very same pension that they are entitled to, just like their pre-1995 counterparts.
Click to expand...

Forcing retirees to seek Jobseekers allowance distorts the true number of those at working age seeking the allowance. Pre 95 retirees can waltz off into the sunset with their pensions, post 95 retirees have put up with using UB and then Jobseekers allowance for a number of years before the State Pension is available. If there is such a crisis, then stop all new entrants getting a DB pension and start them on a DC.
 

It's completely ludicrous. I recently discovered that this is what I have to do - when I retire. Why would I sign on the dole and make myself available for work to get part of my retirement pension? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
 
@hunter1, back in 2014 Howlin, to force PS employees out in their 50's, dangled the redundancy carrot and raided the pension pot to get PS to retire early. Most of these are now early 60's and utilising the Supp Pensions to top up the pension until the State Pension is available.

Its farcical, Dept of Public Reform brought in the Supp rule requirement, Social welfare have to pay it and vet the claimants for unemployment assistance. Raises the cost for Social Welfare.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register