explain the need for a pension age extension...

Stovepipe

Also, that's what housing used to be; a potential pension, but that's getting less and less viable. Too many renters in too small a market. As another forum pointed out, today's pension system is essentially a Ponzi scheme; pay out from what you take in and it's not a permanent,managed fund, so it will always run out of money if the number of contributors fall.

facehugger99

Lads working in the public sector that are in their 20's-30's that think they have a DB pension are basically being lied to.

Public sector pensions are a ponzi scheme being paid for out of current taxation. If the demographics continue, do people honestly believe the young workers in 30-40 years time will pay the taxation levels required to keep ex-public servants in a comfortable pension?

The way pensions are continually politicized as a vote-buying measure by various political parties is absolutely reckless and outrageous.

Ger Roe

Phoebas wrote: »

Yes - back in the day when they ratio of working people to retired people supported it.

Those days are gone and it's predicted to get a lot worse - just two workers per retired person predicted by 2050.

We need to be looking at lot less at the past in this debate and start looking at the future.

Well, we need to look at it in a way that doesn't make people think that they will be financially mugged, if they take out a private pension. A bit of incentive will work better than a heap of compulsion.

Mad_maxx

facehugger99 wrote: »

Lads working in the public sector that are in their 20's-30's that think they have a DB pension are basically being lied to.

Public sector pensions are a ponzi scheme being paid for out of current taxation. If the demographics continue, do people honestly believe the young workers in 30-40 years time will pay the taxation levels required to keep ex-public servants in a comfortable pension?

The way pensions are continually politicized as a vote-buying measure by various political parties is absolutely reckless and outrageous.

True but the public reaction this past two weeks has shown practitioners of cheap hustler politics like Willie o dea that they have the wise approach

Spoiling current pensioners is a vote winner even with the younger generations ( for now)

facehugger99

Mad_maxx wrote: »

True but the public reaction this past two weeks has shown practitioners of cheap hustler politics like Willie o dea that they have the wise approach

Spoiling current pensioners is a vote winner even with the younger generations ( for now)

Absolutely, it works, right up until it doesn't.

Politicians have never been shy about exploiting the selfishness and ignorance of the electorate for a few votes.

Phoebas

Ger Roe wrote: »

Well, we need to look at it in a way that doesn't make people think that they will be financially mugged, if they take out a private pension. A bit of incentive will work better than a heap of compulsion.

There is a heap of incentive to saving for a private pension - I don't think there's a problem there (but I would like some guarantees that they will never again raid private pension pots).
We also need auto-enrolment to encourage people to make private provision.

But none of that touches on the problem with the state pension. It isn't feasible to do nothing (or move backwards) as most of the parties are currently advocating.
I think it was Newstalk yesterday who went reporters out to do vox pops on this issue - they asked a whole lot of retired people what they thought, but didn't bother to ask the people who are going to pay dearly for it.

Winning_Stroke

The vast majority of Irish people have their heads in the sand when it comes to pensions. Either laugh it off with witty original "sure I won't live that long", moan when it's pointed out how much a person needs to save themselves (God forbid people cut back on crap) or just ignore it entirely. There's a rude awakening coming.

Nijmegen

facehugger99 wrote: »

Lads working in the public sector that are in their 20's-30's that think they have a DB pension are basically being lied to.

Public sector pensions are a ponzi scheme being paid for out of current taxation. If the demographics continue, do people honestly believe the young workers in 30-40 years time will pay the taxation levels required to keep ex-public servants in a comfortable pension?

Very true, but I think a lot of people in the PS in their 20s and 30s, the new entrants basically, are well aware of this. Some people I know comment quite bitterly about doing the same work on totally different payscales to people who have vastly better pension entitlements, too. Apparently the retention rates at the moment among new entrants are crap.

So you're on lower pay scales and the pension is a % of career average salary rather than final salary. So (a) you can't get to as high a final salary anyway and (b) your career average is well dragged down. Capital.

Now I think DB pensions are always a ponzi scheme and we should just crystallise what we're on the hook for already and raise some big bond at the 0.45% interest rate the NTMA has been getting for Irish debt lately and put the value of what's promised so far into a PRSA for all serving public servants and make it defined contribution, but I can imagine the walkouts if you tried that...

I was chatting to one fella who was appointed to a senior administrative officer grade. Nowadays starts at €55k and tops out at €87k after 7 years. Working with some pre-95 entrants who are on the scale starting at €118k and topping out at €151k after 6 years and toddling towards their pension of €100k per year plus a lump sum, and not putting in a whole lot of effort in the meantime.

Irish Stones

blindside88 wrote: »

I’m not fan of the age increase but I would imagine the rational is to do with increased life expectancy. Look at the average life expectancy when the old age pension was introduced compared to today.

Life expectancy isn't the same across the world. In some countries people live longer than in other, nevertheless the pension age is the same nearly all over.

If life expectancy was the rational, the age pension should have been tailored according to it country by country. Otherwise there will be country where people would benefit of the retirement much longer than people in the next country.

blanch152

Nijmegen wrote: »

I was chatting to one fella who was appointed to a senior administrative officer grade. Nowadays starts at €55k and tops out at €87k after 7 years. Working with some pre-95 entrants who are on the scale starting at €118k and topping out at €151k after 6 years and toddling towards their pension of €100k per year plus a lump sum (plus the state pension of another €12k), and not putting in a whole lot of effort in the meantime.

That is completely made up rubbish, about which you don't have a clue.

Somebody on €151k can only get a maximum pension of €75.5k, if they have full service. If they are pre-95, they are Class D PRSI and not entitled to the state pension. You suggest that they are getting a pension of €112k, when the reality is a lot let.

Now that is still a nice pension. However, somebody on €151k in the civil service is in the Assistant Secretary grade. People at that level and above form less than 0.1% of the civil service, a tiny tiny minority. There are very very few who will be retiring with a pension like that.

Someone on the "senior administrative grade" is a long way from there and the two are not comparable. I haven't seen a more ill-informed gripe.

JohnnyFlash

People living longer will eventually bankrupt the country. Our welfare and health systems simply will not be able to cope. It’s a seemingly insurmountable problem and it’s about to hit us very quickly. Parties promising early retirement and increases in the state pension are well aware of this but are doing the old head in the sand about the issue.

The cracks are already appearing in the health service.

hmmm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

True but the public reaction this past two weeks has shown practitioners of cheap hustler politics like Willie o dea that they have the wise approach

Spoiling current pensioners is a vote winner even with the younger generations ( for now)

I think the parties panicked, but SF (in particular) and FF are at fault here. They were straight out of traps with their "hey older people, want more free money?" pitch and of course people said "yes!".

Now that people have calmed down, the truth is beginning to dawn on people that there is no free money, the increased pension age was the right thing to do, and we are simply storing up huge problems which our kids will be expected to pay for (and btw I expect them to refuse to pay for - rightly).

I'm desperate to find an excuse to not vote for FG because I think they have been really arrogant about not caring about how taxpayers money is spent, but all the other alternative parties just seem to be even worse.

facehugger99

hmmm wrote: »

I'm desperate to find an excuse to not vote for FG because I think they have been really arrogant about not caring about how taxpayers money is spent, but all the other alternative parties just seem to be even worse.

I will go down to the polling booth on Saturday week, put a '1' beside a FF or a FG politician and fcuking weep.


The choices we are being presented with are lamentably bad.

Charles Babbage

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If they stopped raising it every year to buy votes it wouldn't need an age increase. At the end of the day it comes down to cost. The govt is not able to deal with the money we give them in any kind of efficient manner so wastage has to be absorbed somewhere

The payment of the pension should rise as prices and wages rise, alhough perhaps the politicians should not have control over this. The period of payment of a pension cannot be allowed increase as well though. The proposition should be a proper pay related pension from the government for that period and if you want to retire earlier than you can organise that yourself.


They have screwed up as usual though, in continuing to allow companies terminate people at 65, this should have been prohibited.
Also simple formulas like retire at 66 could have been replaced by 66 and 3 months, as in other European countries, which would have prevent a sharp cliff edge effect.

KyussB

It's really astonishingly simple guys: When you look at the public pension as a proportion of overall government finances, instead of based on just the pension pot - then the entire 'pensions crisis' disappears.

All government has to do is maintain its proportion of GDP - because by the time the pension costs double, overall tax revenue will have roughly doubled as well.

It's that simple.

[/thread]

hmmm

KyussB wrote: »

It's really astonishingly simple guys: When you look at the public pension as a proportion of overall government finances, instead of based on just the pension pot - then the entire 'pensions crisis' disappears.

All government has to do is maintain its proportion of GDP - because by the time the pension costs double, overall tax revenue will have roughly doubled as well.

Just wondering, do you ever take a moment to consider all the people working on pension policy worldwide, and all the economists working on this problem, and all the difficult changes that governments are introducing, and think for just one second that perhaps this is not "astonishingly simple?"

Pension expenditure in 2016 was 3.8% of GDP - in 2060 it will be 6.3%. So your plan to maintain pensions at a consistent level of GDP simply requires us to cut pensions in half - good luck with that.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/final_country_fiche_ie.pdf

Winning_Stroke

I hope y'all are contributing heavily to your own private pensions. We're all going to have to "bridge the gap" from ideal retirement age to when the state one starts.

Nijmegen

KyussB wrote: »

It's really astonishingly simple guys: When you look at the public pension as a proportion of overall government finances, instead of based on just the pension pot - then the entire 'pensions crisis' disappears.

All government has to do is maintain its proportion of GDP - because by the time the pension costs double, overall tax revenue will have roughly doubled as well.

It's that simple.

[/thread]

Were you reading the bit upthread where it was pointed out that pension spend has already doubled since 2007 and is on course to double again at a much faster rate than GDP is going up?

facehugger99

KyussB wrote: »

because by the time the pension costs double, overall tax revenue will have roughly doubled as well.

Well that's a relief.

Mad_maxx

hmmm wrote: »

I think the parties panicked, but SF (in particular) and FF are at fault here. They were straight out of traps with their "hey older people, want more free money?" pitch and of course people said "yes!".

Now that people have calmed down, the truth is beginning to dawn on people that there is no free money, the increased pension age was the right thing to do, and we are simply storing up huge problems which our kids will be expected to pay for (and btw I expect them to refuse to pay for - rightly).

I'm desperate to find an excuse to not vote for FG because I think they have been really arrogant about not caring about how taxpayers money is spent, but all the other alternative parties just seem to be even worse.

Willie o dea has been hopping up and down about more goodies for pensioners since 2016, Regina Doherty had to look over her shoulder constantly

Always Tired

Because raising the age for us plebs means they can claim their own ridiculous pensions in their 50s.

Which should not be allowed, whatsoever. Considering a lot of them will continue to have other income, and probably plenty of savings too considering their travel and phone expenses dont come out of their own pockets while they serve as TDs

Riskymove

Always Tired wrote: »

Because raising the age for us plebs means they can claim their own ridiculous pensions in their 50s.

Which should not be allowed, whatsoever.

that has already changed, but only for newer TDs

those first elected in 2011 wont get pension until 65

those fist elected since 2013 wont get it until the state pension age (i.e. 66 and possibly up to 68 current row notwithstanding)

Nijmegen

Riskymove wrote: »

that has already changed, but only for newer TDs

those first elected in 2011 wont get pension until 65

those fist elected since 2013 wont get it until the state pension age (i.e. 66 and possibly up to 68 current row notwithstanding)

And in continuation of your point, while TDs do have gold plated pensions compared to the rest of us on DC pensions (or nothing but the state pension), stripping every TD who ever lived of their current or future pension would save a fraction of the problem. The entire spend on the entire Oireachtas, printers and all, is €134m per year.

If you decide you don't want to be the only democracy in the world without a parliament, the cost of pensions last year was €9.98m. There's some really juicy pensions in there to hit, and hit hard. Do so and you will save at max €9.98m.

The cost of reversing the current pension age increase is €500m per year on those who are currently/imminently about to retire. That cost balloons as more and more people retire.

€500m less €10m is €490m. Where would you like to get the rest from, now and into the future?

Mad_maxx

Always Tired wrote: »

Because raising the age for us plebs means they can claim their own ridiculous pensions in their 50s.

Which should not be allowed, whatsoever. Considering a lot of them will continue to have other income, and probably plenty of savings too considering their travel and phone expenses dont come out of their own pockets while they serve as TDs

politicians pensions and expenses are a drop in the ocean relative to the totality of the pension crisis

Charles Babbage

Nijmegen wrote: »

I was chatting to one fella who was appointed to a senior administrative officer grade. Nowadays starts at €55k and tops out at €87k after 7 years. Working with some pre-95 entrants who are on the scale starting at €118k and topping out at €151k after 6 years and toddling towards their pension of €100k per year plus a lump sum (plus the state pension of another €12k), and not putting in a whole lot of effort in the meantime.

Of course Pre 95 public servants do not receive the state pension, but why let facts spoil a post.

Brendan Bendar

Mad_maxx wrote: »

politicians pensions and expenses are a drop in the ocean relative to the totality of the pension crisis

Max they could well be, but every bit adds up, that’s the problem.

The ‘stars’ out in RTE don’t deserve the huge wedges they are getting,but their salaries are a drop in the ocean too.

But that doesn’t make it right .

KyussB

hmmm wrote: »

Just wondering, do you ever take a moment to consider all the people working on pension policy worldwide, and all the economists working on this problem, and all the difficult changes that governments are introducing, and think for just one second that perhaps this is not "astonishingly simple?"

Pension expenditure in 2016 was 3.8% of GDP - in 2060 it will be 6.3%. So your plan to maintain pensions at a consistent level of GDP simply requires us to cut pensions in half - good luck with that.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/final_country_fiche_ie.pdf

A report that had to revise their GDP projections upwards by a whopping 50% in just 3 years? Just shows how bad their projections are. Their projections are from 5% to 7.5% - and are inherently unreliable, as the difference between their last two reports show.

We're supposed to believe a report put out by a NeoLiberal government that wants to erode our pensions program and force people into private pensions - which was contributed to by the fraudulent auditor firm KPMG, with ample conflicted pension interests?

The most often reported figures show the public pension costs doubling in that time - which pretty much is amply encompassed by GDP growth - and any that isn't is easily absorbed by government finances.

KyussB

Nijmegen wrote: »

Were you reading the bit upthread where it was pointed out that pension spend has already doubled since 2007 and is on course to double again at a much faster rate than GDP is going up?

It hasn't - the figures read are selective for the purpose of scaremongering, and the increase when you look at all the figures is somewhere around a quarter of that.

Sleepy

If we can't raise the pension age and we can't lower the pension payments, there's only one way to balance the books: reduce life expectancy.

Nijmegen

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Of course Pre 95 public servants do not receive the state pension, but why let facts spoil a post.

Quite correct and edited with thanks.

They only get the €100k per year plus lump sum, not the €112k plus lump sum.

It hasn't - the figures read are selective for the purpose of scaremongering, and the increase when you look at all the figures is somewhere around a quarter of that.

Oh right yeah, the figures on sufficiency from the CSO are scaremongering... For the purpose of, erm, what? Ah who wants to listen to experts anyway, as Michael Gove is fond of saying.