Pension Age - should it stay at 66?

Strumms

Address why it’s unsustainable. Not just about people living longer…the till is being dipped by a growing number of people and that’s unsustainable…do something about it..

as soon as pension age rises once it will do again.

become like the US where it’s commonplace to see a 70+ year old working in Walmart… no thanks.

Geuze

In the UK, teachers do not get a pension lump-sum.

They get a pension worth 1/57 per year of service, so after 40 years, they get 40/57 or 70% of previous earnings.

Here PS get lump-sum of 1.5 times salary (120/80) and 0.5 times salary as a pension (40/80).

You suggest to abolish the lump-sum.

Are you suggesting the pension be increased towards UK levels to compensate?

The combination of 150% lump-sum and 50% pension has traditionally been equated with 66.67% pension.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119294214#Comment_119294214

What will pay for it though?

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295612#Comment_119295612

You cannot compare any the social support in any European country with the US. In the US you are generally depending on a work or private pension. State support is very poor.

Therefore in the US workers tend to stay working longer especially if there health is good. If they do retire they often work part time to supplement there pension.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058252679/pension-age-should-it-stay-at-66

The only thing that MM is concerned about is the grey vote, and the controversy over the pension age which emerged at the last election. The only people who are against the raising of the pension age can only be those who are in line for a big fat pension and don't need to work past 66.

Let's face it anyone who is currently working who's only recourse to income will be a state pension is not looking forward to retiring.

Sam Russell

When the pension age was increased to 66, the whole pension age qualification throughout the employment and pension regime should have had to increase retirement age to 66.

Many employers have a fixed, compulsory retirement age of 65 - no exceptions. This meant employment ended at 65 and state pension started a year later. That was the trigger for the opposition to increases in the pension age. Employees should be allowed to choose their own age for retirement, with the pension adjusted to take account of late or early retirement.

Having it flexible is of benefit for all. Some would be loath to retire at all, others cannot wait to head out the door. If they can afford to retire early, good for them. The state pension should have schemes to suit each approach, but make the net benefit equal by some age - say 75.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295684#Comment_119295684

Yes but do we want to see here going the same way ? That’s my concern. Because I think it will…

standardg60

Completely agree, the opposition came from those who had to claim benefit allowance for the year in between. But these were state employees!

The state increased the retirement age without changing the legislation to allow working until the new age, crazy.

Oscar Madison

What about those who are more active in avoiding any form of employment & are quite happy to reap

benefits without actively contributing towards it? People who reach the age of 65 have worked long enough

without those behind them seeing them as a burden on society! They have paid their way & owe nothing to society!

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295684#Comment_119295684

Is the USA State Pension poor? I'm not sure. It is calculated as follows:

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/social-security-benefits-calculation.html

Throughout your working life, you accumulate an earnings record (sometimes called a work record). That’s the foundation the Social Security Administration (SSA) uses to calculate your benefits, using a three-step process.

First, Social Security adjusts your earnings for historical changes in U.S. wages, takes your 35 best-paid years and produces what it calls your average indexed monthly earnings (AIME). Only income up to the maximum taxable earnings — the annually adjusted cap on how much of your earnings are subject to Social Security taxes — is counted. (The maximum taxable earnings in 2022 are $147,000.)The formula breaks down your average monthly wage into three parts. In 2022, it is:

• 90 percent of the first $1,024 of your AIME;
• plus 32 percent of any amount over $1,024 up to $6,172;
• plus 15 percent of any amount over $6,172.

Lets' assume your AIME is 5,000 / 60,000 pa.

(0.90)(1024) = 921.60

(0.32)(6000-1024) = 1592.32

So the pension per month is USD 2,513, which is not bad.

spontindeed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295719#Comment_119295719

I spoke to a few grey voters at the 2020 election and I remember one guy telling me that they regret allowing Brian Lenihan's hike to 66 pass but no way were they going to allow it further increase. Their argument is that there IS money out there - it's simply a matter of finding it (e.g. Apple Tax money). Vardkar and Martin always claim there's no money from one side of their mouth and on the other side they defend appealing the Apple Tax which would bring in €13 billion to our national pension system. It is a national scandal how this big corporation was allowed to pay just 0.005% tax here. I bet there are other sweeetheart tax deals we haven't yet heard of. That's why the next Government should prioritize a probe into the tax affairs of all big multinational corporations for potential windfall back taxes. Other EU Countries regularly do this.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297268#Comment_119297268

Its not about there being money out there its about demographics and no matter how much money you manage to find under the mattress there is no way to keep the current system working when we move from 5:1 worker to retireee ratio we have now to 3:1 by 2040 and then 2:1 by 2050.

That problem cannot magically be fixed as it unfortunately takes 16+ years to grow new workers earning at just the lowest levels... and even immigration cannot fix the hole we have created for ourselves by making having a child so expensive.

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297268#Comment_119297268

You can keep saying Apple pay 0.05%, but it is not true.

There is no "special deal".

There is an agreement between the Revenue and Apple about what share of ASI's profit is attributable to their Irish branch.

ASI is massively profitable, making 30 bn ++ USD profit per annum.

However, only some of ASI's activities happen at its Irish branch in Cork. So only some of these huge profits are attributed to Ireland.

Some people think that because ASI is registered in Ireland, then all of its profits should be taxed here. That is not how CT works.

Our CT rules are based on where a company is managed, not where it was registered/born.

Please see here:

https://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-apple-did-next.html

"To carry-out its underlying activities ASI had a branch in Ireland that undertook the supply, chain, logistics, demand forecasting, administration and other activities involved in getting the products from the manufacturer in Chine to the sales markets. The US board paid a fee to the Irish branch for these activities and the taxable income in Ireland was based on this fee rather than the global profits earned by ASI."

Many people in Ireland make unverified statements, like the catch-cries of the clown.

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297268#Comment_119297268

Please read this:

https://www.apple.com/ie/newsroom/2017/11/the-facts-about-apple-tax-payments/

Seamus Coffey is very good on CT:

https://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2019/08/some-insight-into-apples-use-of-capital.html

https://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2020/08/further-insights-into-apples-use-of.html

https://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-latest-insight-into-apples-use-of.html