Stock market correction or bear market/crash? Either way I bailed.


You mean the demographic who took many a bullet so your lot didn't have to have any recession at all
 
No, I obviously don't know what the future holds.

But if your equity portfolio plunges 20% in the morning you won't have access to 100% of your money anymore - you will have to accept a 20% haircut if you want to liquidate your equity investments.

It's certainly true that the Government could expropriate pension savings at some point in the future. Or anything else that they fancy. Look at what happened to CGT rates, income tax, USC, DIRT, Exit tax, PRSI on unearned income, etc., during our most recent financial crisis.

The real advantage of pension savings that most people ignore is not the fact that you get to invest money before any tax deduction (i.e. alongside an effective interest free loan from the Government) but that any invest gains get to compound tax free. That's a huge benefit over the long term.
 
I’d echo all of Sarenco’s comments. Also, it’s hard to envisage a scenario where a 20% rate taxpayer gets hammered by any tightening of the rules. Neglecting pension investment in favour of personal investment is crazy in my view.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
I’d echo all of Sarenco’s comments. Also, it’s hard to envisage a scenario where a 20% rate taxpayer gets hammered. Neglecting pension investment in favour of personal investment is crazy in my view.
Click to expand...
People on 20% tax rate who can afford to save paying into a pension to max out there age allowed pension tax break should finish up with a very good pension as a % of there final salary even if they have to stop paying into pension at some stages of there working life provided the max out there payments in the early years of there working life,

Someone on 40% tax well see there take home wage drop by around 17.5% when you take into account USC and PRSI unless they are on a very high salary,
Someone on 20% tax will see there take home wage drop by around 20% when you take into account USC and PRSI
 
Last edited:

So basically your approach is to spend most of your money now on various experiences, and once that is more of less spent on lifestyle, you then will be one of those who have made no sacrifices yourself and look for the tax payer to bail you out.

I do agree though that if the government is to bring in mandatory pension enrollment they need to firmly put legislation in place which does not allow pension funds to be raided in the future the same way as Michael Noonan did in the financial crises. This discussion needs to be brought front and centre with the next government - the current one is unlikely to implement it since they are the ones who raided them in the first place.
 
I suspect you are not taking into account the 15 billion in the National pension reserve fund also spent by Noonan on the Banks

I suspect no TD looked for the 3.4Billion taken in from selling 28.75% of AIB to be returned to the Reserve pension Fund,

At the next election remember to ask why they did not return the money to the reserve pension Fund ,

let them know they will not be happy after the Election when the find out how you feel about the money being taken and not returned to Fund having being paid back,
 
Last edited:
at times some of the above sounds like all your eggs in one basket logic.
I'm 31 now god only knows what age i will access the state pension from. I think its looking like 68 now. So i'm left in the position i can access my private pension from 60, my job will kick me out at 65 and i wont get the state pension till 68. When i look at what to do with my spare money i break it up into 3 places

  • cash on demand (rainy day fund)
  • shares
  • Pension

at the moment its 20:20:60 is how its braking up. Soon savings for a deposit will get added in as well The aim is to get it to even split with the above 3 to start with. My logic with the shares is the money is there if i need it but don't expect to need it for next 20 years.
 
RETIRED2017 said:
I suspect you are not taking into account the 15 billion in the National pension reserve fund also spent by Noonan on the Banks

I suspect no TD looked for the 3.4Billion taken in from selling 28.75% of AIB to be returned to the Reserve pension Fund,
Click to expand...
no I am not talking about any of that - although all valid points.
I am talking about the raiding of the private pension funds with the pension levy, which is akin to attacking deposit holders accounts.

At the next election, I have one simple question for the politicians that knock on my door - I want to know how they are going to ensure that after 40 plus years paying PRSI that I will have a State pension fund to draw down when I retire AND how are they proposing to fund it?
 
Philip Slattery said:
I'm 31 now god only knows what age i will access the state pension from. I think its looking like 68 now. So i'm left in the position i can access my private pension from 60, my job will kick me out at 65 and i wont get the state pension till 68.
Click to expand...
I am 42 - so at the moment I am 26 years away from whatever I may potentially get from a state pension
Realistically, I believe this will be raised to 70 by the time I get towards retirement. I am hoping it will not be raised above that mark

The other issue is the amount of people in their 60's who are in poor health, or have health issues that would stop them from working. This is growing and likely to grow further over the years - despite advances in medicine

Philip Slattery said:
My logic with the shares is the money is there if i need it but don't expect to need it for next 20 years.
Click to expand...
While a noble principle, the reality is there is considerable taxation on investment type assets in Ireland whether it be deposit, shares or unit funds.

In order to improve the financial well-being of the population, we really need to introduce some sort of ISA type model that allows people to save modest amounts of money without being stung alive with tax. Even if the limit was 3-6k a year, it would be a start and people may be more inclined to have some sort of rainy day fund !
 
I am totally in agreement with you The problem we have in this Country go back to the fact FF / FG and Labour are the same party we have copped on to labour now we need to find a party who will look after the people who worked all of there life seen over 15% PRSIA 1 taken in payroll only to see more groups Parachuting in to rob there prsi fund every few years by FF/FG and Labour,

I expect SF will be the same as Labour in government looking after there own,

WE need to find a party at present to look after the people who have no choice but see around 15% of there payroll taken for 40 years or more only to see people who pay very little get the same pension as them ,

If the Government want to add in people to the same fund as people who see 15% taken in payroll let them pay 650000k into the fund up front for each person the parachute in,
 
Last edited:
Sarenco said:
No, I obviously don't know what the future holds.

But if your equity portfolio plunges 20% in the morning you won't have access to 100% of your money anymore - you will have to accept a 20% haircut if you want to liquidate your equity investments.
Click to expand...

This argument makes no sense to me , your assuming my portfolio hasn't grown at all and even if it lost 20% i'd rather have 80% of something than 100% of nothing. I can't access my pension till retirement .
What if you found out a kid was really sick and needed to go to America to fund treatment? What use is 200k in a pension to me then? I'd much rather instant access to 80% of that money , it's hard to put a value on the instant access to that money , you have put a value on it and to you pension investment is worth it , to me its not , not having access to that amount of money until retirement I would need to be compensated a lot more.


And if they tax pensions what can you do other than sit there and take it , I can move my money out of my investments I might decide to buy a place abroad , cash up and leave the country altogether or anything else I chose to do , again this non financial value is huge to me.

Gordon Gekko said:
I’d echo all of Sarenco’s comments. Also, it’s hard to envisage a scenario where a 20% rate taxpayer gets hammered by any tightening of the rules. Neglecting pension investment in favour of personal investment is crazy in my view.
Click to expand...

And equally I think investing in something that you don't get back for 30+ years in my case is crazy when I strongly believe the government are going to raid pension funds in the future.



This is a not a straight forward right or wrong decision its a personal judgement call based on all the facts available , I think locking money away is crazy based on what I have said about not been able to put a value on having access to money when you need it for whatever or moving it to be avoid penal taxes or an opportunity that may arise , maybe i'll buy a place abroad with my money and retire at 50 to spain , you cannot put a value on that , the fact the government has shown capacity to raid private pensions in the past I think people that invest are extremely naive to believe they won't be again and paying for the people that were'nt so prudent in their planning.
 
At present lobby groups are raiding the prsi Fund indirectly if lobby groups want the same pension as people who seen 15% prsi of there payroll go to the PRSI FUND,
Lobby Groups should seek to have there pension paid from general taxation,
 
Last edited:
Employment-related pension funds can be accessed at age 50; that’s hardly restrictive, is it?

You are entitled to do what you like as it’s your money, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an insane strategy.

No doubt you could insure against the black swan events you’re worried about with a view to contributing to a pension and still be better off.
 


As you said, population aging, more people will be impacted by changing the pension rules, which means more voters. I doubt any political party will grasp this nettle
 
blured said:
As you said, population aging, more people will be impacted by changing the pension rules, which means more voters. I doubt any political party will grasp this nettle
Click to expand...

well the electorate got what it wanted on this issue up to now in so far as the over sixties were a disproportionately large percentage of the vote , every party tripped over themselves to make promises to increase the state pension ( willie o dea and regina doherty being the biggest offenders ) and pensioners saw no real cuts post crash bar trivial reductions in heating allowances during months when the weather isnt even cold , there were cuts to very wealthy pensioners in terms of medical card thresholds but these income levels were above where most working people earn per year on average

its going to take a massive change in public mindset to deal with this time bomb , most dont realise just how spoiled the elderly currently are and that anyone who is thirty today wont be anywhere as well looked after by government
 
blured said:
As you said, population aging, more people will be impacted by changing the pension rules, which means more voters. I doubt any political party will grasp this nettle
Click to expand...
Not so sure no political party will grasp the nettle ,
The amount of people in this country who pay PRSI under the payroll system seeing 15% going into the PRSI Fund only to see the likes of FF/FG and LABOUR squander it on lobby groups ,

The day will come when one of the Political party or a New Political party will come into being with a slogan WE are needed to keep FF/FG /SF and Labour honest and ensure people who have paid PRSI into a fund are protected they only need to hold the balance of power for it to work

Look at how the IFA Campaign worked to get there Members and others into the PRSI FUND ahead of the review that is coming up,

It made more since for the Prsi Fund point of view to wait until the review was completed first before parachute more into a fund already in trouble ,

Now people will long term have to pay more PRSI to fund our new visitors,

Most have being fattening them self With a Private pension on the savings made by not paying PRSI,
 
Last edited:

not one political party or TD is Questioning why the Department has not released the figures it is expect that the PRSI Fund will take in around 380 million more than it paid out in 2017 they are working on making sure it is squandered on lobby groups first,
 
galway_blow_in said:
its going to take a massive change in public mindset to deal with this time bomb , most dont realise just how spoiled the elderly currently are and that anyone who is thirty today wont be anywhere as well looked after by government
Click to expand...
Absolutely. What you will see if a major divide between public and private sector pensions as well, deepening the mistrust between the two groups. Private sector state pension will rise to 70

The problem is it needs to be tackled now for someone due to retire in 2040, to allow people some level of forward planning to cater for this. No point pulling the rug under their feet in 2035 just before they are due to retire.

My personal view is there should be no contributory state pension - there should be a mandatory pension scheme for everyone who is working with at least 5% contributions from employees and employers each going into it (numbers up for discussion but the higher the better). This can come off current PRSI contributions, or at least reduce them somewhat. When people retire, they should be eligible for a means tested pension based on their income & wealth. So if someone is sitting on a 1 million asset and minimum income, they need to downsize to accommodate their revised circumstances. Those who have little or nothing should get some sort of assistance from the government - effectively the safety net !
 

You cannot even be serious with this comment? Insane? what not to invest at 20% tax relief towards a pension? Give me a break even people who are pro pensions that I have spoke to and work in the pensions industry are on the fence about it been worthwhile for lower tax rate payers.

I could counter that argument with insanity is expecting your pension fund that was raided before to remain untouched by future governments , open your eyes to the way the world is going , there are going to be more pensioners than ever in years to come the majority of these are going to have not plans in place , where is the money going to come from? It's always the same the ones who made sacrifices will be funding the ones that didn't .
 

most believe that those in receipt of the state pension more than covered ( what they are in receipt of now ) the cost in PRSI contributions down the years , the truth is very different , its the working young who are paying for the state pension today , that was sort of ok when you had four workers for every retiree but that wont be the case in a few decades

there isnt a scintilla of evidence that the government is attempting to curb the appetite of pensioners or those about to become pensioners , minister regina doherty is particularly voracious in her desire to heap goodies upon the elderly , she is of course constantly looking over her shoulder at willie o dea who these days appears to be spokesperson for pensioner largesse

there has been a massive increase in spending on the elderly this past twenty years , it dwarfs the increases in the public sector pay bill percentage wise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register