FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

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.

Sorry, not getting any digs in, just correcting facts. There are people going around misrepresenting the truth, I am just correcting the narrative. The pension age changes date back to 2012, and were legislated for years ago, so simply not true for you to pretend otherwise.

Whether or not you think that they are a good idea or not is an opinion, and I have no problem with whatever opinion you have. However, the FACT that the pension changes have been legislated for years is a FACT. Only correcting that aspect.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

How would I know? You spoke of the impending pension doom and asked for alternatives to simply raising retirement age.

Blanch summed it up better that I could, but when I asked for alternatives, I meant workable ones.

If you're only spit balling, that's fine, but don't dismiss raising the retirement age as an attack on the poor if you have nothing resembling an alternative.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Sorry, not getting any digs in, just correcting facts. There are people going around misrepresenting the truth, I am just correcting the narrative. The pension age changes date back to 2012, and were legislated for years ago, so simply not true for you to pretend otherwise.

Whether or not you think that they are a good idea or not is an opinion, and I have no problem with whatever opinion you have. However, the FACT that the pension changes have been legislated for years is a FACT. Only correcting that aspect.

I think raising the age is a ****ty idea. No 'facts' to address.
It's poor governance to have that be some form of solution.
Is this another one of these times were government ministers aren't responsible for running the country? Will they kick up over a recommendation and try something rather than sit on their arse(s)? Will they f***. Piss poor governance.

JohnnyFlash

Examples from other social democracies like our own:

In Denmark, the retirement age will be increased gradually to reach 67 years by 2022. From 2030 onwards, it will be increased a maximum of one year every five years depending on increases in average lifespan. It will be 68 by 2031, 69 by 2032, 70 by 2033, 71 by 2034 and 72 by 2035

In Germany the retirement age is to be increased gradually and reach 67 years by 2029

It's already 67 in Norway, and will, in future, be linked to life expectancy.

Sweden - By 2023 the retirement age will be 66 and by 2026 it will be 67

In Belgium the retirement age is to be increased gradually to 67 years by 2030

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_in_Europe

The question for Bowie is what would you make cuts to so you could keep the retirement age at what it is at the moment? Would you cut other social welfare rates, or maybe trim the health budget? We don't have an infinite amount of money.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Blanch summed it up better that I could, but when I asked for alternatives, I meant workable ones.

If you're only spit balling, that's fine, but don't dismiss raising the retirement age as an attack on the poor if you have nothing resembling an alternative.

It's not credible to suggest we can't upon request, offer up suggested alternatives without complete costings and projection data. I don't have that info, nor the time, also we elect people for such matters.

Why not? If something is piss poor, it's piss poor.

James Brown

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Examples from other social democracies like our own:

In Denmark, the retirement age will be increased gradually to reach 67 years by 2022. From 2030 onwards, it will be increased a maximum of one year every five years depending on increases in average lifespan. It will be 68 by 2031, 69 by 2032, 70 by 2033, 71 by 2034 and 72 by 2035

In Germany the retirement age is to be increased gradually and reach 67 years by 2029

It's already 67 in Norway, and will, in future, be linked to life expectancy.

Sweden - By 2023 the retirement age will be 66 and by 2026 it will be 67

In Belgium the retirement age is to be increased gradually to 67 years by 2030

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_in_Europe

The question for Bowie is what would you make cuts to so you could keep the retirement age at what it is at the moment? Would you cut other social welfare rates, or maybe trim the health budget? We don't have an infinite amount of money.

I'd raise the minimum wage and take a percentage from all workers towards retirement.
I wouldn't cut anything.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

It's not credible to suggest we can't upon request, offer up suggested alternatives without complete costings and projection data. I don't have that info, nor the time, also we elect people for such matters.

Why not? If something is piss poor, it's piss poor.

Well none of our political parties could come up with any sort of alternative (unless you count burying your head in the sand as an alternative). If it was so piss poor, you'd think one of them could have managed it.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Well none of our political parties could come up with any sort of alternative (unless you count burying your head in the sand as an alternative). If it was so piss poor, you'd think one of them could have managed it.

Agreed. I know it's tough, but I'm loyal to good policy not party. Hats off to any one of them come up with something more reasonable.
I simply don't think it's fair to expect low paid workers to work for longer because government(s) can't or won't come up with something better.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Agreed. I know it's tough, but I'm loyal to good policy not party. Hats off to any one of them come up with something more reasonable.
I simply don't think it's fair to expect low paid workers to work for longer because government(s) can't or won't come up with something better.

Doesn't matter what is "fair", it's what is realistic. And as I said we were presented with two options, do nothing or raise the age. Any party that thought doing nothing was OK should not be taken seriously.

is_that_so

Bowie wrote: »

I think raising the age is a ****ty idea. No 'facts' to address.
It's poor governance to have that be some form of solution.
Is this another one of these times were government ministers aren't responsible for running the country? Will they kick up over a recommendation and try something rather than sit on their arse(s)? Will they f***. Piss poor governance.

The facts are the annual cost of not doing so estimated at between €240m and €385m, coupled with life expectancy now over 80 and rising - men 80.4, women 84 and that we will have about 20% of the population in that cohort by mid-century.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

The facts are the annual cost of not doing so estimated at between €240m and €385m, coupled with life expectancy now over 80 and rising - men 80.4, women 84 and the that we will have about 20% of the population in that cohort by mid-century.

Unless there's an alternative. Nobody suggested doing nothing.

christy c

is_that_so wrote: »

The facts are the annual cost of not doing so estimated at between €240m and €385m, coupled with life expectancy now over 80 and rising - men 80.4, women 84 and the that we will have about 20% of the population in that cohort by mid-century.

But that's only now though isn't it? There's also the issue of there being 5 workers to 1 pensioner now, whereas that is expected to drop to 2 to 1 by 2050 (?).

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Doesn't matter what is "fair", it's what is realistic. And as I said we were presented with two options, do nothing or raise the age. Any party that thought doing nothing was OK should not be taken seriously.

We should explore other avenues. Do we increase the age again and again?
Agreed. The curs, lets get them!

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Nobody suggested doing nothing.

Isn't that what most parties suggested? Most famously "the demographics will look after themselves".

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

We should explore other avenues. Do we increase the age again and again?
Agreed. The curs, lets get them!

Explore other avenues, great. But until those avenues prove viable something needs to be done. Raising the retirement is likely to be part of any solution.

JohnnyFlash

Bowie wrote: »

I'd raise the minimum wage and take a percentage from all workers towards retirement.
I wouldn't cut anything.

So you’d raise USC and PRSI?

James Brown

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

So you’d raise USC and PRSI?

Well you see taxes were supposed to fund things like pension, water, bin collection etc.. However like all things hip and cool with the way we do business, it doesn't quite cut it, due in no small part to piss poor governance and either a shortsightedness or unwillingness to look ahead.
If we need the workers to contribute more rather than work them until they drop, increase their wages and take a portion towards pension. Just an idea.

ThunbergsAreGo

Bowie wrote: »

Well you see taxes were supposed to fund things like pension, water, bin collection etc.. However like all things hip and cool with the way we do business, it doesn't quite cut it, due in no small part to piss poor governance and either a shortsightedness or unwillingness to look ahead.
If we need the workers to contribute more rather than work them until they drop, increase their wages and take a portion towards pension. Just an idea.

And kill small business?

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

Unless there's an alternative. Nobody suggested doing nothing.

Fact....People are living longer, that’s great, therefore whereas before the state had to pay out for an average of ten years.

Now it’s closer to 20.

It has been proved that state coffers under current conditions cannot support that scenario into the future.

A graded sensible increase in the retirement age is the way to go.

Don’t do what Greece did, let Stavros tan his leather nutbag out on Mykonos while Hans in Germany worked his arse to pay for it when the place collapsed.

This ‘let someone else pay’ bulldust is well and truly tonked, pal.

Do you take the folk who get up early for idiots.

James Brown

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

And kill small business?

Theres a middle ground surely. TBH, as a tax payer I'm more concerned about subsiding low paid workers than the fortunes of private profits.

satguy

People at 65 should get their pension.

If you remember when wealthy couples were in danger of have their children's allowance cut off if over 120K per year.
It was shot down, and rightly so,, well now the same goes for the pension, and rightly so.

Again, I ask, what age was Enda Kenny when he took that hugh state pension ?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-s-pension-likely-to-be-almost-130-000-a-year-1.3089676

Brendan Bendar

satguy wrote: »

People at 65 should get their pension.

If you remember when wealthy couples were in danger of have their children's allowance cut off if over 120K per year.
It was shot down, and rightly so,, well now the same goes for the pension, and rightly so.

Again, I ask, what age was Enda Kenny when he took that hugh state pension ?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-s-pension-likely-to-be-almost-130-000-a-year-1.3089676

So it doesn’t bother you that in years to come those working will be crippled paying for the lads and lassies sitting back until an average of 90.

Someone has to pay, my friend, that ol’ majic money tree duddnt exist, my friend.

Getting paid by the state for 20-30 years..... ,as has been demonstrated many times.

satguy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

So it doesn’t bother you that in years to come those working will be crippled paying for the lads and lassies sitting back until an average of 90.

Someone has to pay, my friend, that ol’ majic money tree duddnt exist, my friend.

Getting paid by the state for 20-30 years..... ,as has been demonstrated many times.

It bothers me about as much as it bothers Enda Kenny = 0

JohnnyFlash

satguy wrote: »

It bothers me about as much as it bothers Enda Kenny = 0

What age are you, dude? Might bother you if you reach retirement age and discover the pot is empty because we didn’t raise the pension age in time.

Brendan Bendar

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

What age are you, dude? Might bother you if you reach retirement age and discover the pot is empty because we didn’t raise the pension age in time.

The same guy will be ranting and raving on a bullhorn outside ‘New Leinster House’ whinging that he cant get healthcare, water charges gone up to 2 k a year, income tax 62%, those on the scratcher getting €80 a month, a pint of stout €25.95..

John, these lads have a lot to learn.

Meanwhile Johnners and the Brenner will be tannin’ their little giblets in the ‘little place’ in Portugal, modest mind you, 4. bathrooms, pool, five bedrooms marble kitchen....etc, and an Egyptian ‘ Care nurse‘ to hrrrr ....
take care of their every needs.

Good lad..... while you are standing in a picket line in the rain with Mary lou’s grandkids.

Good man yersel.

satguy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

What age are you, dude? Might bother you if you reach retirement age and discover the pot is empty because we didn’t raise the pension age in time.

My small state pension will be Like Enda was,, invisible,, But if the pot really is empty,, Enda's €130K per year will be very very visible.

christy c

satguy wrote: »

My small state pension will be Like Enda was,, invisible,, But if the pot really is empty,, Enda's €130K per year will be very very visible.

Enda will likely be pushing up the daisies when it really bites. But you'll show him!

Bishop of hope

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

The same guy will be ranting and raving on a bullhorn outside ‘New Leinster House’ whinging that he cant get healthcare, water charges gone up to 2 k a year, income tax 62%, those on the scratcher getting €80 a month, a pint of stout €25.95..

John, these lads have a lot to learn.

Meanwhile Johnners and the Brenner will be tannin’ their little giblets in the ‘little place’ in Portugal, modest mind you, 4. bathrooms, pool, five bedrooms marble kitchen....etc, and an Egyptian ‘ Care nurse‘ to hrrrr ....
take care of their every needs.

Good lad..... while you are standing in a picket line in the rain with Mary lou’s grandkids.

Good man yersel.

Portugal is not on the Green list
And, if it is then you'll be joined by covid ridden pups and pensioners, there's no escape.

jimmycrackcorm

satguy wrote: »

People at 65 should get their pension.

If you remember when wealthy couples were in danger of have their children's allowance cut off if over 120K per year.
It was shot down, and rightly so,, well now the same goes for the pension, and rightly so.

Again, I ask, what age was Enda Kenny when he took that hugh state pension ?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-s-pension-likely-to-be-almost-130-000-a-year-1.3089676

What's the basis for getting a pension at 65? why not 60? I mean let's go for 50.
Because it's always been 65? If we're going to keep things just because that's the way it was, can we bring back drinking and driving and smoking in pubs. Because that's the way it always was.

As regards children allowances, we'd actually be better off investing that money into a pension scheme for each child as, after 65 years, it would be worth an actual pension for them.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Enda will likely be pushing up the daisies when it really bites. But you'll show him!

As I said we need leadership that will walk the walk. Once they set themselves up they couldn't give two f***s, which would be fine if managing the country wasn't their job, well paid at that.
I suppose the tax paying worker will need roll up his sleeves and work till he drops so we can keep them in fat pension(s) and assistants. On their holidays now.