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

i know the government never think past the next election but park that for a moment , do the government not invest in the markets themselves when it comes to building a future ( pension ) well to draw from for the then retired ? , i realise they tax the young today to fund the state pension as well but is this not combined with funds attained from the markets down the years ?

id be a lot more worried about the state itself being in a position to take care of me in thirty years , i would not want to have only that life boat to hop into when i reach seventy , the threat of the government dipping into my private pension would be lower down the list of fears , if a future government were to start robbing private pension holders on a grand scale , im not sure it would be the only problem facing the country and its people , if the government were so malevolent as to start robbing private pensions , why would someone then think they would be all sunshine and lollipops towards those without a private pension in the first place ?
 
galway_blow_in said:
do the government not invest in the markets themselves when it comes to building a future ( pension ) well to draw from for the then retired ?
Click to expand...

No, the government does not invest in the markets to build a future pension fund. In fact the government does not currently hold any of the PRSI it collects to pay future benefits.
 
Ceist Beag said:
Why do you assume that those objecting to the temporary "tax" have all stopped contributing to their pension? Some of us might just have been pointing out that the temporary "tax" was 100% wrong in our view, that even if you might not think so Gordon, in my view it did damage the pension industry in that it caused some (not all!) people to consider alternative options of funding their retirement, and set a very dangerous precedent. I know most people I work with were fuming about this raid and if it were to happen again, as gnf said, I would hope that it would bring people out on to the streets.
I still see the merits in contributing to a pension but I absolutely will bring this topic up with to any candidate who comes to my door in the next election campaign (and would have said it at the last had anyone bothered to call!).
Click to expand...

Because posters have stated that they’re avoiding pensions for fear of another pension levy.
 
cremeegg said:
No, the government does not invest in the markets to build a future pension fund. In fact the government does not currently hold any of the PRSI it collects to pay future benefits.
Click to expand...
Think it changed in 2005 for the Prsi fund That is why you have the IFA and others gate crashing and making sure they are inside the fund before the review later this month,
 
RETIRED2017 said:
Think it changed in 2005 for the Prsi fund That is why you have the IFA and others gate crashing and making sure they are inside the fund before the review later this month,
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken. There is no fund to pay State pensions out of. Your PRSI contributions get spent by the government as soon as they come in the door. There is no pot of money, no investments, and even the pension reserve fund that was put aside for a rainy day was spent during the GFC. All pensions are paid out of current expenditure, i.e. from this year's tax take. The government borrowed to keep paying pensions (and everything else) during the financial crisis. That's why we have a debt equivalent to 100% of GNP. Anyone who doesn't find this scary in the face of an aging demographic hasn't thought about it very hard. The increases in pension age probably don't enter the thoughts of younger people, but they already amount to 20% of the average life expectancy in retirement. How much more of it will go is anybody's guess.
 
dub_nerd said:
I think you are mistaken. There is no fund to pay State pensions out of. Your PRSI contributions get spent by the government as soon as they come in the door. There is no pot of money, no investments, and even the pension reserve fund that was put aside for a rainy day was spent during the GFC. All pensions are paid out of current expenditure, i.e. from this year's tax take. The government borrowed to keep paying pensions (and everything else) during the financial crisis. That's why we have a debt equivalent to 100% of GNP. Anyone who doesn't find this scary in the face of an aging demographic hasn't thought about it very hard. The increases in pension age probably don't enter the thoughts of younger people, but they already amount to 20% of the average life expectancy in retirement. How much more of it will go is anybody's guess.
Click to expand...
Google Funding of the social Insurance 2005 , You will see why the lobby groups pushed to be inside the Prsi fund and the Government allowed them in before the up coming review,

Also Google social insurance fund 377m in surplus says Varadkar you will see he said he was going to keep it in surplus so you know who will have to pay for all of the extra people who were added to pull out of it straight away,

You will also see that the announcement for 2017 was made on the 26 dec 2016 did you notice we now have 14/2 2018 and there has being no announcement for 2017 so the likes of dub_nerd of this world will not cop on the people added in are raiding the fund and are going to be backdated out of the fund even though the have not paid in the required amoun


That is why I said on another post the government needs to put money into the fund to cover all the people they have added into the fund over the years who did not contribute to it,

People in there forties do not seam to care how the fund is getting used up now This is there fund we are talking about,
 
Last edited:
RETIRED2017 said:
Google Funding of the social Insurance 2005 , You will see why the lobby groups pushed to be inside the Prsi fund and the Government allowed them in before the up coming review, Also Google social insurance fund 377m in surplus says Varadkar you will see he said he was going to keep it in surplus so you know who will have to pay for all of the extra people who were added to pull out of it straight away, You will also see that the announcement for 2017 was made on the 26 dec 2016 did you notice we now have 14/2 2018 and there has being no announcement for 2017 so the likes of dub_nerd of this world will not cop on the people added in are raiding the fund and are going to be backdated out of the fund even though the have not paid in the required amoun
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about. Have you any concept how much money goes through the social insurance fund? €377m is barely a fortnight's worth. Even in our good years the fund barely registered a surplus -- for eleven years out of its 65 year existence to be exact. Varadkar's surplus is the first one since 2007 and it's peanuts. Projections are that the fund will need a 50% government subvention by 2050, representing 5 or 6% of GDP. A few year's back it had a nearly €2 bn deficit for one year! I've no idea what you mean by "people are going to be backdated out of the fund" ... pension payments are an ongoing payment out of the fund's current account. Are you saying people are going to age 20 years in a week in order to get a big payout, like that hackneyed scene from a dozen horror movies? Sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense. :D

Here's an extract from an actual review of the fund from 2015:

The increasing State contribution to the funding of the SIF: In only 11 years of its
existence has the SIF produced a surplus of income over expenditure. The latest
actuarial review of the SIF has projected the Exchequer subvention will increase
steadily over time and will exceed 50% of the total SIF funding by 2050. The likelihood
that the Exchequer contribution will become a more significant part of the Fund
suggests that the employee and employer SIF contributions might be better aligned
with the Exchequer income. Issues of long-term reform, contribution rate levels etc.,
to address sustainability issues in social insurance funding are areas for separate
analysis
​
 
RETIRED2017 said:
People who see 15% PRSI taken in payroll need to start questioning why they get the same pension as people who only a few only % in
Click to expand...

That's a different question to how things are funded. People getting a non-contributory pension are means tested. It's true you can get a substantial contributory pension -- two thirds of the max -- with only one third of the contributions (but not "only a few percent"). Below the minimum contributions you get nothing.
 
How do they treat the fact that benefits are taxable?

i.e. they might pay out a €12k pension to someone only for them to pay €5k of it back to the State via tax.
 
dub_nerd said:
What on earth are you talking about. Have you any concept how much money goes through the social insurance fund? €377m is barely a fortnight's worth. Even in our good years the fund barely registered a surplus -- for eleven years out of its 65 year existence to be exact. Varadkar's surplus is the first one since 2007 and it's peanuts. Projections are that the fund will need a 50% government subvention by 2050, representing 5 or 6% of GDP. A few year's back it had a nearly €2 bn deficit for one year! I've no idea what you mean by "people are going to be backdated out of the fund" ... pension payments are an ongoing payment out of the fund's current account. Are you saying people are going to age 20 years in a week in order to get a big payout, like that hackneyed scene from a dozen horror movies? Sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense. :D

Here's an extract from an actual review of the fund from 2015:

The increasing State contribution to the funding of the SIF: In only 11 years of its
existence has the SIF produced a surplus of income over expenditure. The latest
actuarial review of the SIF has projected the Exchequer subvention will increase
steadily over time and will exceed 50% of the total SIF funding by 2050. The likelihood
that the Exchequer contribution will become a more significant part of the Fund
suggests that the employee and employer SIF contributions might be better aligned
with the Exchequer income. Issues of long-term reform, contribution rate levels etc.,
to address sustainability issues in social insurance funding are areas for separate
analysis
​
Click to expand...
I know it went out over the top of your head ,

The Government have spent around the same amount of years talking about PRSI reform as they have about draining the Shannon,

While they have being talking PAYE Tax payers see one sixth of payroll go to the prsi Fund while others see very little of there earnings go to the PRSI Fund when they reach 66 they all get the same pension,

Paye taxpayers will have paid in all of there working life others groups can get the same pension by paying in for 10 years,

Look at the Voluntary pay related social insurance contribution rates when you get a chance

Also look at the IFA WEBSITE social insurance contributions not picking on Farmers just there site will show you how little you need to pay in to get a full pension how can the fund build up when there are so many pulling out of it without paying the same amount in,

If every one had to pay in the same amount of there direct earnings there would be far less abuse of our social insurance system,
 
Last edited:
joe sod said:
I think this is a very good point. I opened a thread in the pensions section about the unfairness of the state pension how some people are qualifying for a full pension today after paying very little in
https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/joan-burton-2012-pension-changes.206954/#post-1553480
Click to expand...
It is possible for someone to get a full contributory in 2018 having paid in around 1000 euro over 10 years lots would be in a position to stop paying once they had enough to get full pension,

Some see one sixth of there payroll go to look after the lobby groups it is the biggest con job ever carried out in this Country ,

the reason the PRSI Fund is not in surplus for the people who pay in one sixth of there payroll all of there working life for the last forty years is simply because it is being robbed to Fund those who don't end of story

People who see one sixth of there payroll go into a PRSI Fund since the started working need to stop sleepwalking into the next election without questioning where did my money i pay in PRSI Fund go and demand answers from the parties who have ripped them off FF/FG /Labour by the way SF will do the same to them,

Some party need to know there is votes to be got if they start looking after the people who see one sixth of there payroll go in PRSI and stop giving it to lobby groups,
 
Last edited:
dub_nerd said:
I think you are mistaken. There is no fund to pay State pensions out of. Your PRSI contributions get spent by the government as soon as they come in the door. There is no pot of money, no investments, and even the pension reserve fund that was put aside for a rainy day was spent during the GFC. All pensions are paid out of current expenditure, i.e. from this year's tax take. The government borrowed to keep paying pensions (and everything else) during the financial crisis. That's why we have a debt equivalent to 100% of GNP. Anyone who doesn't find this scary in the face of an aging demographic hasn't thought about it very hard. The increases in pension age probably don't enter the thoughts of younger people, but they already amount to 20% of the average life expectancy in retirement. How much more of it will go is anybody's guess.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, There are none so blind as those who will not see, most of the one sixth needs to be put aside is is not supposed to be used to buy votes,
The people who are using it at present to buy votes need to know they will pay a very heavy price at the next election,and the people who come after them will suffer the same fate if they do not change,

We need to send a strong message to who ever is in power that they people who see one sixth of there payroll go into a black hole called the PRSI Fund will not stand for it any more,
 
Last edited:
RETIRED2017 said:
Rubbish, There are none so blind as those who will not see, most of the one sixth needs to be put aside is is not supposed to be used to buy votes,
Click to expand...
I can't see which bit of this you don't get. None of the PRSI contributions have been "put aside" for any purpose. Apart from a small minority of surplus years, all the money gets spent as fast, or faster, than it comes in.
 
dub_nerd said:
I can't see which bit of this you don't get. None of the PRSI contributions have been "put aside" for any purpose. Apart from a small minority of surplus years, all the money gets spent as fast, or faster, than it comes in.
Click to expand...
What I cannot get is why the dub_nerd of this world take it lying down and allowing this to happen people who see one sixth of there payroll going into the fund only to be taken by others need to start shouting stop while there is time to do something about it ,

No point in closing the door when the horse is gone,

30000 to 40000 more were added in the last few weeks who have not paid in enough PRSI for a full pension they are now going to get the full pension and next year they are going to get a lump sun for all on the years back to when they were 65 in 2019 out of the PRSI fund because of lobbing by the IFA and others this should not be coming out of the PRSI Fund it should be coming out of central funds,
 
RETIRED2017 said:
What I cannot get is why the dub_nerd of this world take it lying down and allowing this to happen people who see one sixth of there payroll going into the fund only to be taken by others need to start shouting stop while there is time to do something about it ,

No point in closing the door when the horse is gone,

30000 to 40000 more were added in the last few weeks who have not paid in enough PRSI for a full pension they are now going to get the full pension and next year they are going to get a lump sun for all on the years back to when they were 65 in 2019 out of the PRSI fund because of lobbing by the IFA and others this should not be coming out of the PRSI Fund it should be coming out of central funds,
Click to expand...

Why dont you start a separate thread on this point. I would certainly be interested.

This thread is about a stockmarket correction, the one before last :D if I remember correctly.
 
cremeegg said:
Why dont you start a separate thread on this point. I would certainly be interested.

This thread is about a stockmarket correction, the one before last :D if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
my first post cremeegg was no 378 if you check I think you will find I replied to post no 377 just for the record

I only set out to correct misinformation there are lots of retired people who have paid enough PRSIA1 for the benefits they are getting,

Some speak out of both sides of there mouth they are resentful of the people who seen one sixth of there payroll go all of there working life to fund the benefits the are getting in retirement and want the Government to take some of it back , now read there post yourself to see what they are saying out of the other side of there mouth,;)

Do they really think if the took some money off the people now retired it will be put aside for them (google Dog in the manger)

I am pushing for some to be put aside for them but they don't seam to want that ,


I understand where you are coming from no offence taken cremeegg

I suspect lf I opened a thread I would find the people paying lower PRSI and getting the same pension as someone seeing one sixth of there payroll go in prsi
will start muddeing the waters

Best regards Retired,
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top