Everyone pays VAT.
Probably not a typical example. FIS is a lifeline for many low-income families.
Last edited:
"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
J
jjm
Guest
cremeegg you are on the ball ,Next thing we need to do is Seeing there will not be enough to go round we need to have a discussion on how we are going to manage that fact,OECD REPORTS ONLY LOOK AT THE HEAR AND NOW the are not worth the paper they are written on .What the posters are talking about is away bigger problem, There is no long term plan .For a long term plan to work we need to look at what people have already put in and start acknowledging there should be some payback ,
I think they are wondering why they can't afford anything.
No, the current system fundamentally ignores that, using your analogy, there is not enough income available after paying labour to go around among the projected number of pensioners in the future. Individual retirement accounts, funded by individuals or the State or a combination of both, will show everyone exactly what they will have at retirement, based on sustainable levels of contribution. What we have not is a failing ponzi scheme.
J
jjm
Guest
The middle are working because of there moral compass many would be better off not working most have a problem with the system , They are not really any better off by working, I say that as some one who has worked for over 47 years only to find that when i reach 65 I will be treated the same as someone who never worked a day in there life ,The system is loaded against them,
They should also be looking at whether we as a nation can afford the current levels of State funded pensions. The answer is no and the next question is what we should do about it. Instead of looking at that we are ignoring what's coming down the tracks at us.
I agree. The social contract is broken and as people realise that fewer people will be willing to pay into something from which they get little back.
I wouldn't worry..the national debt will have long been paid off at that stage and we will have a bulging national reserve fund to see us in clover
I like that idea, that an individual account would show people what they will have, i.e. very little.
Even if it were only a notional individual account, it would give an much cleared picture of what could be expected in retirement.
Lets see
average income €37,000 psi at 14.5% (to include employers contribution) €5,457
assume 50% is available for pension 50% to cover other benefits, (I have no better idea what the actual split is)
Thats €2,728 being set aside every year
For 40 years work thats €109,150 plus €65,400 investment income at 3% after inflation over the 40 years gives an individual pension pot of €174,550
At 5% that would give an income in retirement of €8,727 or about two thirds of the current actual.
average income €37,000 psi at 14.5% (to include employers contribution) €5,457
assume 50% is available for pension 50% to cover other benefits, (I have no better idea what the actual split is)
Thats €2,728 being set aside every year
For 40 years work thats €109,150 plus €65,400 investment income at 3% after inflation over the 40 years gives an individual pension pot of €174,550
At 5% that would give an income in retirement of €8,727 or about two thirds of the current actual.
J
jjm
Guest
cremeegg other groups are only paying 500 euro per year and the will recive the same benifit
And a large chunk are paying nothing and get the same; the non-contributory pension.
I'd be surprised if contributions cover even 25% of it.
The concept of the notional retirement account is to highlight this to people.
So that anyone who paid €500 per year, with no employers prsi, would have a much smaller individual retirement pot, €16,000 in fact based on the same assumptions.
If the government sent out a statement each year showing the size of the notional individual account available to each citizen based on what they had paid in, that would transform the debate.
Exactly.
An individual retirement account would mean that the proportion of PRSI that goes towards your state pension (say 50%) could be topped up by the account owner.
J
jjm
Guest
You are correct Purple Now we will let cremeegg do the figures Non contributory is 222 per week contributory 238euro per week, You get 16 euro for 40 years paying Prsi ,And don't forget PRSI total was higher than 4% lowered to 4% when the USC came in,
True. I think a lot of people had invested in property for this reason. The Govt seem to be discouraging that also. Ignoring Landlords and tightening up on inheritance.
Add to that the fact that the total income taxes take from State employees is about equal to the pensions paid to former state employees. In effect they either fund their own pension and don't pay any income tax or they pay income tax and they don't fund their own pension.
So do we want part time landlords who don't know how to do that job properly or do we want a hybrid pension fund which the State and the individual can contribute to? Think of all the cash the State would have to invest. The problem is they they have already shown that they are willing to steal from private pension funds in order to fund gold-plated DB pensions. Who would trust them to keep their hands off these new hybrid pension funds?
IS that all the super rich? Do you know that "the super rich" are all playing the tax system to pay little of no tax? If you don't know then you should avoid statements which, if said about other groups in society, would be considered bigoted.
To answer your question; if they claim more in benefits than they pay in taxes then yes. If not then no, Fella and his wife are worse.