FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

christy c

satguy wrote: »

it will just push more votes to SF next time round.

This bit is far from certain, while SF come out with complete and utter nonsense like "spend Apple's money", there will always be room for FG and FF.

Brendan Bendar

christy c wrote: »

This bit is far from certain, while SF come out with complete and utter nonsense like "spend Apple's money", there will always be room for FG and FF.

Good analysis Kit.

The bullhorn boys make the incorrect extrapolation that loss of support for the current lot would fall to them.

Then Middle Ireland will remember the ‘Wolf Tones arias’ the ‘broke the State dude’, the fake funeral for poor Bobby and say...........nah mate, not for us.

smurgen

Same aul FG. All in together etc etc

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1288376301305372672?s=19

smurgen

Poor aul Heather Humphreys done a U turn aswell. Bad day for FG.

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

Same aul FG. All in together etc etc

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1288376301305372672?s=19

Its all about the status and perks. It's a pissing contest.

satguy

Bowie wrote: »

Its all about the status and perks. It's a pissing contest.

And poor tax payer is picking up the bill.

Now we can see, that on their own their bad, but glued together, their really really bad. All we can do is pay the price.

The gravey train keeps a rolling,, Just wait till Dinny climbs aboard.

is_that_so

Bowie wrote: »

Its all about the status and perks. It's a pissing contest.

Article states that Justice and the Commissioner deemed it a security requirement. It's also one more thing for Alan Kelly to shout about and doesn't he love to shout.

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Article states that Justice and the Commissioner deemed it a security requirement. It's also one more thing for Alan Kelly to shout about and doesn't he love to shout.

Justice department headed by a FG justice minister, and a commissioner appointed by an FG govt decide FG politician doesn't have to give up his perks/can keep perks shocker.

satguy

Just wait till FG, with Heather Humphreys pushed out up front, are trying to tell us we need to work until we are 68.

While we still remember that Enda Kenny was only out of puberty when got his pension. Now FG's Simon Coveney wants a car and Garda driver.

Pure Greed.

christy c

satguy wrote: »

... trying to tell us we need to work until we are 68.

What is your solution for the pension problem? I'm not sure the demographics will look after themselves.

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

What is your solution for the pension problem? I'm not sure the demographics will look after themselves.

Mandatory pension deductions.

With so many special advisor's and assistants and what not - you'd think someone on a relevant paygrade would have come up with that already.

christy c

McMurphy wrote: »

Mandatory pension deductions.

With so many special advisor's and assistants and what not - you'd think someone on a relevant paygrade would have come up with that already.

Could be worth a shot. How much per week are you thinking from someone on say minimum wage?

James Brown

Maybe if FF/FG/Greens looked after low income workers to raise their wage instead of promising to address it later, they might have something to save.

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

Could be worth a shot. How much per week are you thinking from someone on say minimum wage?

See above ref special advisor's and their paygrades.

I've enough on my plate without working out pension payments for those on minimum wage, for the already overpaid civil servants or special advisor's.

It should however have some bearing with your current earnings and what you pay in tax - perhaps a certain percentage of current income tax deduction should relate to your future state pension?

Can't be that hard to work out if someone on a 100k a year is already entitled to the same state pension as someone who has been on minimum wage most/all of their lives?

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Maybe if FF/FG/Greens looked after low income workers to raise their wage instead of promising to address it later, they might have something to save.

Flesh that out a bit. Raise their wage and then hope they put that aside for their retirement? Again could be worth a shot.

But do you subsequently reduce the amount of the state pension to defuse the time bomb?

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Flesh that out a bit. Raise their wage and then hope they put that aside for their retirement? Again could be worth a shot.

But do you subsequently reduce the amount of the state pension to defuse the time bomb?

Or take from source. Many employers have pension plans were a percentage is taken from wages. State could do similar.

Doing nothing but blame the poor only goes so far.
It's piss poor management to simply say work longer. For what, work till you drop so they can give themselves raises and super duper assistants? They really turn my stomach.

Pay workers a livable wage were they can put something aside. Not bleed them were they need state aid and shorten their retirement all because private profits can't be touched.

christy c

McMurphy wrote: »

See above ref special advisor's and their paygrades.

I've enough on my plate without working out pension payments for those on minimum wage, for the already overpaid civil servants or special advisor's.

It should however have some bearing with your current earnings and what you pay in tax - perhaps a certain percentage of current income tax deduction should relate to your future state pension?

Can't be that hard to work out if someone on a 100k a year is already entitled to the same state pension as someone who has been on minimum wage most/all of their lives?

Whenever you have a little less on your plate, I'd love to see your proposal in any detail. This post only seems to be having a go at advisors, as opposed to being anything constructive.

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

Whenever you have a little less on your plate, I'd love to see your proposal in any detail. This post only seems to be having a go at advisors, as opposed to being anything constructive.

No - what I'm saying is mandatory pension deductions should be a considered option in a fairly wealthy state/democracy.

I'm not having a dig at the advisors - I'm merely saying that I'm not employed by the govt to work the merits/finer details of what, on the surface should be fairly easy to work out.

If someone on the minimum wage is currently entitled to the same state pension as a million/billionaire is - someone somewhere should be able to work out what proportion of their income tax deductions should be sufficient to be ring-fenced for a future state pension, which may/may not have some kind of correlation to the contributions made over the years, or may be kept as a blanket payment to everyone eligible.

Who shall I send my invoice to?

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Or take from source. Many employers have pension plans were a percentage is taken from wages. State could do similar.

Doing nothing but blame the poor only goes so far.
It's piss poor management to simply say work longer. For what, work till you drop so they can give themselves raises and super duper assistants? They really turn my stomach.

Pay workers a livable wage were they can put something aside. Not bleed them were they need state aid and shorten their retirement all because private profits can't be touched.

Yes many employers have pension plans, but Defined Benefit plans are getting rarer and rarer. How much would need to be taken from source per week/month to enable a state pension to be paid at a fixed rate? And how many people would be willing to accept that?

I'm not blaming anyone, particularly "the poor". The only plans I have seen from our political parties for the pension problem were 1. Do nothing. 2. Increase the age. Number 1 will not work for obvious reasons. Number 2 will at least reduce the cost, unpleasant as it may be.

If there are other things that would work such as taking from source/mandatory pension deductions, great. But let's have some (any) detail please.

satguy

Last Year FG stopped telling us how much TD would get in their pension,, I wonder why ? , It's a secret now .

blanch152

john4321 wrote: »

"Number of people claiming Covid-19 payment has fallen by almost half
Some 313,800 are claiming pandemic payment, down from a high of almost 600,000"


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/number-of-people-claiming-covid-19-payment-has-fallen-by-almost-half-1.4308741

Not only wrong, but massively wrong!!

So funny.

christy c

McMurphy wrote: »

No - what I'm saying is mandatory pension deductions should be a considered option in a fairly wealthy state/democracy.

I'm not having a dig at the advisors - I'm merely saying that I'm not employed by the govt to work the merits/finer details of what, on the surface should be fairly easy to work out.

If someone on the minimum wage is currently entitled to the same state pension as a million/billionaire is - someone somewhere should be able to work out what proportion of their income tax deductions should be sufficient to be ring-fenced for a future state pension, which may/may not have some kind of correlation to the contributions made over the years, or may be kept as a blanket payment to everyone eligible.

Who shall I send my invoice to?

You are proposing a concept (genuinely fair play for trying), but there is no details on if it will actually work. Someone on minimum wage pays very little tax, so the option of ring fencing that will not work as you have practically nothing to ring fence. Now if the proposal would be that millionaires pay more, then we are already in dangerous territory as the top 10% or earners pay 90% (?) of income tax.

The other proposal that pension be linked to contributions is politically very difficult, imagine the headline "Michael O leary gets more state pension than a 70 year old widowed woman".

blanch152

satguy wrote: »

Last Year FG stopped telling us how much TD would get in their pension,, I wonder why ? , It's a secret now .

Last year the Data Protection Commissioner told the civil servants in the Oireachtas to stop making public personal data around pension payments.

However, you twist that to read "last year FG stopped telling us how much TD would get in their pension".

I wonder why you did that? Do you genuinely believe that is what happened and are therefore a victim of the opposition propaganda machine? Or are you aware of the truth and misrepresenting it here?

https://www.thejournal.ie/freedom-information-ministers-pensions-5092578-May2020/

There was no political involvement in the decision, just another smear, whatever its source, on Fine Gael.

To be clear, I am not expressing an opinion on whether it is a good or a bad thing that such pension details be publicised, just correcting the facts.

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

You are proposing a concept (genuinely fair play for trying), but there is no details on if it will actually work. Someone on minimum wage pays very little tax, so the option of ring fencing that will not work as you have practically nothing to ring fence. Now if the proposal would be that millionaires pay more, then we are already in dangerous territory as the top 10% or earners pay 90% (?) of income tax.

The other proposal that pension be linked to contributions is politically very difficult, imagine the headline "Michael O leary gets more state pension than a 70 year old widowed woman".

For the record, I would also be in favour if something similar was introduced for dole payments, the more you put in, the more you get out if the time ever came that you found yourself needing it.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Yes many employers have pension plans, but Defined Benefit plans are getting rarer and rarer. How much would need to be taken from source per week/month to enable a state pension to be paid at a fixed rate? And how many people would be willing to accept that?

I'm not blaming anyone, particularly "the poor". The only plans I have seen from our political parties for the pension problem were 1. Do nothing. 2. Increase the age. Number 1 will not work for obvious reasons. Number 2 will at least reduce the cost, unpleasant as it may be.

If there are other things that would work such as taking from source/mandatory pension deductions, great. But let's have some (any) detail please.

How would I know? You spoke of the impending pension doom and asked for alternatives to simply raising retirement age. Raising the age means once again low paid workers are penalised for piss poor governance.

I'm speaking on the tone of looking to the least well off in society as a scapegoat, not your personal view. It's generally if the poor weren't so poor we wouldn't have to subsidise them.
We need leadership that walks the walk. The ink is barely dry on the new government and they seem to be ensuring they're looked after first and foremost.

Agreed. One would think raising the age was a last minute back of a beer mat solution.

spoonerhead

One argument in relation to pension age is life expectancy, which sounds fair. Until you dig deeper into it and find plenty of respected sources warning this generation will not live as long as our previous one. The McDonald’s effect eh.

I am 24 paying into a Defined contribution scheme and also paying PRSI, so it’s a bit double whammy. Completely agree with all the points made, successive governments sitting on their hands once pension continuity is mentioned.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

How would I know? You spoke of the impending pension doom and asked for alternatives to simply raising retirement age. Raising the age means once again low paid workers are penalised for piss poor governance.

I'm speaking on the tone of looking to the least well off in society as a scapegoat, not your personal view. It's generally if the poor weren't so poor we wouldn't have to subsidise them.
We need leadership that walks the walk. The ink is barely dry on the new government and they seem to be ensuring they're looked after first and foremost.

Agreed. One would think raising the age was a last minute back of a beer mat solution.

I don't know where to start with this, it is so full of holes.

(1) Raising the age does not mean once again "low paid workers are penalised for piss poor governance". The pension problem has been caused by advances in health care, better nutrition, greater longevity, all secured by successive governments making Ireland a better, richer place to live, the opposite to your "piss poor governance".

(2) Raising the pension age has been on the agenda for a very long time, the fact that you were not aware of it is not a reflection of "a last minute back of a beer mat solution". Here is a link to a 2018 Report on Pensions.

https://assets.gov.ie/36822/650472688691472ea9a2c94c13cc9949.pdf

Oh, look here:

"To accommodate demographic ageing, all
EU countries have undertaken, or have scheduled,
reforms to their State pension age. In Ireland,
legislation that progressively increases the Irish
State pension age to 68 in 2028 has already been
enacted."

That goes back to an EU Commission paper in 2012, and subsequent legislation in Ireland.

"A policy which
sees Ireland linking the State pension age with
life expectancy is a policy direction for Member
States advocated at EU level
and has been
recommended by the OECD"


Them's the facts.

satguy

blanch152 wrote: »

Last year the Data Protection Commissioner told the civil servants in the Oireachtas to stop making public personal data around pension payments.

The Data Protection Commissioner is / was appointed by FG, and will say what he is told to say.

In the same way the sindo will call Micheál Martin "The Taoiseach" even if they, and we, know that Leo is still in the big chair.

blanch152

satguy wrote: »

The Data Protection Commissioner is / was appointed by FG, and will say what he is told to say.

In the same way the sindo will call Micheál Martin "The Taoiseach" even if they, and we, know that Leo is still in the big chair.

That is a whole new level of conspiracy theory when the DPC has already had a number of rows with the government. If that is what you believe, nothing I can say to answer that, however, the facts, as reported, are the facts.

If you can produce a reputable source that explains how Fine Gael forced the DPC to say that, I will read it.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know where to start with this, it is so full of holes.

(1) Raising the age does not mean once again "low paid workers are penalised for piss poor governance". The pension problem has been caused by advances in health care, better nutrition, greater longevity, all secured by successive governments making Ireland a better, richer place to live, the opposite to your "piss poor governance".

(2) Raising the pension age has been on the agenda for a very long time, the fact that you were not aware of it is not a reflection of "a last minute back of a beer mat solution". Here is a link to a 2018 Report on Pensions.

https://assets.gov.ie/36822/650472688691472ea9a2c94c13cc9949.pdf

Oh, look here:

"To accommodate demographic ageing, all
EU countries have undertaken, or have scheduled,
reforms to their State pension age. In Ireland,
legislation that progressively increases the Irish
State pension age to 68 in 2028 has already been
enacted."

That goes back to an EU Commission paper in 2012, and subsequent legislation in Ireland.

"A policy which
sees Ireland linking the State pension age with
life expectancy is a policy direction for Member
States advocated at EU level
and has been
recommended by the OECD"


Them's the facts.

Let's get on thing straight you are more interested in getting a few digs in than having a discussion. As this seems to be okay here, I'll play along regardless.

1) Yes it certainly does. Raising the age should be a last resort. If they were any use they'd come up with something better. Those low paid workers who cannot afford to retire will be the ones losing out. That's my point.

2) Ah, you see I couldn't give a flying f*** if Sean Lemass was behind it. Here's were you make stuff up: I said "One would think raising the age was a last minute back of a beer mat solution", in that it's such a poor and 'easy' fix it comes across as last minute. You knew what I meant I'd imagine.

So you facts are shifting the blame for a ****ty idea that FF/FG/Greens are cool to do nothing about. Groovy. That told me.