Was there any announcement about the €2m pension cap being increased?

[Fortune]

There has to be fairness. The €2m limit has been there for 10 years so it’s been heavily reduced in real terms by inflation. The people who it effects are helping to drive the obvious economic success we’re enjoying in this country. We must incentivise productivity and excellence.

And that's without even considering that it was >€5m earlier than that, so would be much higher with inflation

 

[Zion2022]

There has to be fairness. The €2m limit has been there for 10 years so it’s been heavily reduced in real terms by inflation. The people who it effects are helping to drive the obvious economic success we’re enjoying in this country. We must incentivise productivity and excellence.

The most interesting part of the SFT paper wasn’t just the level, it was the rate of tax applied above it.

As the author concluded, its purpose is not to be incredibly penal. It’s merely to stop people benefitting from an excessive tax break. If the tax is set at a level that it’s breakeven for state and individual, the SFT has served its purpose. If an individual goes above it, they gain nothing lose nothing and are just being slightly more prudent to provide for their own retirement.

The author concluded 10%, not 40% was the appropriate level for this. And it would be perfect for those gardai and consultants who have no control over their pension accrual rate.

40% is just unnecessary gauging bringing the combined effective tax rate to over 70%. Personally I’d have loved to have seen this implemented but it’s been ignored.

 

[Fibbernacci]

The most interesting part of the SFT paper wasn’t just the level, it was the rate of tax applied above it.

As the author concluded, its purpose is not to be incredibly penal. It’s merely to stop people benefitting from an excessive tax break. If the tax is set at a level that it’s breakeven for state and individual, the SFT has served its purpose. If an individual goes above it, they gain nothing lose nothing and are just being slightly more prudent to provide for their own retirement.

The author concluded 10%, not 40% was the appropriate level for this. And it would be perfect for those gardai and consultants who have no control over their pension accrual rate.

40% is just unnecessary gauging bringing the combined effective tax rate to over 70%. Personally I’d have loved to have seen this implemented but it’s been ignored.

Given that the UK is likely going to install a lifetime limit of 1 million again and this is our only major investment tax break. I'll take what I'm given no complaints.

 

[ashambles]

Very high paid private sector workers don't care about the SFT - the state regulated pension scheme is one part of their investments. They will use it to their advantage if it's increased but won't lose sleep either way. The most wealthy would be as worried about the SFT as they are about the contributory pension.

Middle to higher paid private sector workers could care - but the 115k and age limits has made it difficult to get to 2m on your own contributions. (it's around 1.25m a person can contribute over 40 years or 816,000 for someone 55 with 30 years- maxing out contributions every year).

If it's mainly a self-funded pension these people need to start balancing the tax relief versus eventual tax treatment, charges and access restrictions before the SFT.

Once they get the SFT back over an amount that allows a sec-gen to not be inconvenienced on retirement it will go to back to being indexed with earnings like it was for a few years after they set it to 5m.

Irish workers would like simply taxed investment schemes schemes outside of the pension, an increase in the SFT only helps Revenue to keep blocking that "sure don't they have the tax relief on the pension and didn't we just increase the SFT"