I agree. Someone who can fund that themselves is already part of the 10% who contribute 50% of the tax and probably 80 to 90% of the net contributions when social transfers are taken into account. Getting the tax deferred on their income for all pension contributions is the least they should get.That is a different argument.
For someone with a high-cost base and high earnings throughout his/her career, it is not a massive pension.
The State Pension is fine for a significant cohort, but for others it's trivial. It is wrong to mix the two in my view.
What payments would someone have to make over 40 years to fund that? I recon it is around €600 a month.Incidentally, the full contributory State pension has an actuarial value of around €350k - that's hardly a trivial sum by any standards.
That's €412 a month if it's paid on your full income. I'm getting a fund value of €362,000 using the . That gives a pension of €974 a month.someone now on 55000 started paying 9% of there gross wages since 1990 would have a pension pot of around 500000 now that would buy them 20000 a year at 65 for the rest of there life same amount would buy around 18500 per year and the surviving spouse 9250 for the rest of there life.
someone now on 55000 started paying 9% of there gross wages since 1990 would have a pension pot of around 500000 now that would buy them 20000 a year at 65 for the rest of there life same amount would buy around 18500 per year and the surviving spouse 9250 for the rest of there life.
I do not know what his wages were in 1990 but I will get back when I find out.
Even if that is correct you are ignoring that PRSI is meant to fund lots of other things as well as the contributory Pension. It also funds the non-contributory pension, sick leave, Dole etc. In reality it all goes into the same pot but even if it didn't only a proportion would go towards pensions. Prior to 2009 there was a PRSI ceiling after which you stopped paying as you had contributed your fair share (a good idea).Purple If you look at what someone was paying in PRSI on lets say 55000 in 2009 as an example
They paid 4% on the first 127 each week or a total of 4% on 6604 total prsi 264 euro
They paid 8% on the balance of 48396 or a total of 3871euro
There employer paid 10.75 on 55000 or a total of 5912
Total stopped 10047 euro that is some tax/PRSI on an employer/employee
total of 10047 euro taken in total almost the same as a person would get in a pension if they were 66.. when i go back and look at my p60 total take is around the same as someone getting the old age pension in that year.anyone on around 55000 now would always have being caught for total prsi.
PRSI changes for 2009 Employee’s annual earnings ceiling The employee’s annual earnings ceiling (above which no social insurance contribution is paid) has increased from €50,700 to €52,000. Employee income thresholds
• The threshold for employee PRSI remains at €352 a week.
• The threshold for payment of the 2% Health Contribution remains at €500 a week.
• The annual earnings threshold for the Health Contribution remains at €26,000. Additional Health Contributions
• There is no change in the additional 0.5% Health Contribution on earnings exceeding €1,925 a week (equivalent to €3,850 a fortnight and to €8,342 a month).
Read the link I posted!Purple I always thought your training would lead you to check your facts.When you get a chance check again and give an example for someone on 55000 euro and show me where I am going wrong please .take 2009/2010.I expect the Government will once again put stealth tax back on top of the working people paying PRSI A1.This will mean that doing away with the USC will not apply to workers.There are lots of posters back around 2009 pointing out that total take on PRSI A1 earners was around 50% 4% prsi and the top rate of tax would not come near 50% so were the posters incorrect then .Purple if you Google PRSI claas A1 2009 or any other year for that matter you will find correct rate.(PRSI A1 is for people earning over 26000 per year or 500 per week it will bring you straight to the USERS GUIDE which payroll use.. Its looks like you have being looking at the rate for someone on over 500 per week on a medical card
For income over €1925 a week (€100,100 a year) it was 6.5%This is the Welfare Guide on PRSI from 2009. The low rate, in the first 127 each week was 2%. Income after that, up to €1925 per week, was 6%.
From the link;
I agree with your sentiment that low and middle earners are grossly under taxed and that the income tax burden in particular, and the tax burden in general, falls on far to narrow a band of people. We punish work and reward idleness. We are well on our way to a socialist "utopia".Purple in 2010 the took it up to 8% in 2011 the took it back to 4% and brought in the USC. Varadker is talking about putting the USC and PRSI back the way it was. meaning the only people who will still be paying it will be the people on PRSI Class A1.If you look at the Users guide for 2010 PRSI went to 8% ,If you look at the users guide for 2011 PRSIA1 is 4% this showes PRSI Class A! Were the only people paying a USC all along and it is heading back the same way again
Why was it a gaff?Personally I feel that was too loaded a statement and no advice was given/taken before its utterance. I know he tried to explain the meaning later on, but its implication had been registered in peoples brains. I would expect a lot more gaffes from Leo down the line.