Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Pensions Age to ..... 72 !?

1356

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 652 ✭✭✭Sonic the Shaghog


    This it exactly the same thing I see.

    I know ones on 30k plus and by the time they should be starting a private pension they are now getting married, having to pay mortgage and then a few kids come along. Even if they have a reasonable mortgage with the costs of everything going up if they paid in weekly what we get told is needed for a private pension they wouldn't have the cash to fix the car etc if they get caught out

    A couple would want to be making 40k plus each to be able to live comfortably and put away a tidy amount for the private pension. What's more I've a friend on 45k and his pension will be worth about €300 a week when he retires and he's aghast at the thought he probably won't get his contributory €220 on top

    I reckon we'll see a means tested state pension. If your private pension is equal to or more than the state then nothing for you

    One thing I do see is another "emergency tax" to be added to people's private pensions in future too



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,706 ✭✭✭Montage of Feck


    It's only a matter of time before Soylent Green style end of life facilities become a reality anyway.

    🙈🙉🙊



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,009 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Let's not forget that the pension age of 70 was set when the first state pension was introduced by Otto Von Bismark in Germany when the average male life expectancy was 36.... it was later lowered to 65 in 1916. So there you go, Government, forever taxing you in the hope you never live to collect.

    In many ways the Dail is intent on returning to that tradition of preferring you drop dead at your desk and then they can riffle through your pockets to take what's left before you're even cold.

    Rely on those f!£%rs for nothing.



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I don’t think you read my answer. Read my answer again. there will be private pensions, probably forced, there will be top ups, there will be a reduced state pension for most.


    what we won’t ever have, unless society collapses, is no State pension for everybody.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    I doubt that was true as it was about 26 years in Stone Age times and barely above 30 in the 18th century. Life expectancy does drop when more people than usual die at a younger age, as with COVID. The evidence would be the UN projections for 2100. Here's Western Europe below.


    https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/926



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,018 ✭✭✭knipex


    I dont see you achknowledging that if the age isn't reduced then the pension will have to be reduced


    You mention that people who contributed to their own pension getting their state pension cut and those with lesser pensions getting topped up, nothing about the pension having to be cut.


    This is somethign that needs to be driven home to people..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,346 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    In 1950 it was 65, in 2021 is just over 82, in 2040 it'll be 85.

    If you have a child born now, then it's very likely they will live to 90-100.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    People are not going to magically live for ever. The average is increasing because we can battle cancers, asthma, pollution, workplace deaths, etc.


    There is an upper limit before old age just does its thing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,330 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    What'll happen eventually is the state pension will be means tested. If you have a private pension that exceeds the state pension per week then you won't get a state pension. If the private pension provides lower than the state pension you'll get the difference only.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,258 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    need to wait till the voting demographic changes before messing with pensions. thats a strong voting block.

    did they not bring in mandatory private sector pensions a few years ago?



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That would just discourage people from taking out private pensions, since you’d have to be confident your private pension would be worth vastly more than the state pension; you’d be making private pension contributions and paying prsi, when you could just pay prsi and get the same pension in the end.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,330 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    I don't personally see the incentive in a €200 or so per week pension. I mean it's poverty line stuff.



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]



    if the state pension is cut for people with private pensions, that is a state pension cut. Eventually we will force the pension and most people will have some private payout

    And the pension age will probably rise, but I don’t see 72.

    Why is everything so dramatic in the internet. You said there would be no state pension for anybody. That’s not possible without a major political and economic change.



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Naw. The rate of change is slowing down or reversing.

    Well it’s not so bad if you have a mortgage paid off and some savings

    Private pensions will become obligatory. Should have happened by now.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    ….



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The non-contributory state pension is I think about €237 a week. Contributory is more. But take 237, which is over 12k a year. Under your scheme, if you take out a private pension, the first 12k you get every year is just what you would have got for the state pension, and you had to make private contributions on top of paying prsi (to pay for state pensions, among other things but that’s the big ticket item). So basically you paid prsi just for the benefit of others, while you made provisions for yourself with a private pension. That’s penalising people for taking out a private pension, which is the opposite of what we want to do if we want people to make provisions for themselves.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yeah, I remember when they decided private health insurance would become obligatory.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,676 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Bigger worry for me is they will try some way to tax private pensions that a lot of us have set up and are paying in to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,258 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    thats a worry of mine also. i have a pension that i pay into monthly, also have friends of the same age who dont.

    in 20 years time (or whatever), could you possibly be denied the state pension cos you have your own?

    maybe i'd be better off spending now on coke and hookers.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    True, to some extent.


    I know people in their 50s that are wrecked from drinking and bad lifestyle


    My own father is 76. Is idea of retirement was quitting his full time job and reducing working hours to 40 hours a week.

    I know another man in his 90s still working.

    True, you can't do what you could do in you're 30s but there's ways and means for sure.


    I'm mid 40s. I'll stop working the day before I die hopefully. Otherwise my head will go to shite and I'll die anyway sitting around



  • Registered Users Posts: 113 ✭✭ByTheSea2019


    I think the state pension will have to be a means tested benefit eventually because of the number of people needing it. When state pensions were initially introduced the state pension age was greater than the average life expectancy. I'm working on the assumption I will be getting nothing when I retire in probably four decades time realistically.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,653 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    One of the problems is the political parties are already afraid of the "grey" vote, and have traditionally shied away or reversed decisions that adversely affect pensioners. As the numbers who are of of pension age increases their influence increases making it more difficult to apply policies that may be seen as adversely impacting pensioners. A bit of a vicious circle. I remember 20 years ago we were being warned of the pensions time-bomb and in those 2 decades relatively little has been done to address it largely because of the pensioner lobby, making it an even bigger issue going forward



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,592 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    No, there were proposals before the 2016 election to bring in auto-enrollment and compulsory employer contributions (albeit derisory) but it didn't happen.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,330 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    A few years ago pension contributions had full tax relief. But then it was changed and they are now subject to PRSI and USC. The government don't give a hoot about incentivising people to pay into private pensions. If they did they wouldn't have changed the rules on PRSI and USC and mandatory enrollment would be a thing. There are fundamental changes coming down the line to pensions. To think otherwise is very naive imo



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    SF will happily dip into private pension pots to ensure their voter base are looked after



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Either the age limit is increased or the weekly rate is reduced


    It's far too high anyway, the state pension is welfare at the end of the day, vast majority of people draw down far more than they made in contributions, they vigorously argue to the contrary but its a fact



  • Registered Users Posts: 886 ✭✭✭raher1


    its all about paying celtic tiger morgages



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭dubrov


    In fairness, that's all the Civil Service. It would be the same department running the tender no matter who is in government.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Welcome to the new public service pension thinking



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Main thing is to have a job that you don't loathe so much you want to escape at 66 (or whenever). Simply because if you need to escape your job that badly you're already wasted a lot of your life in it.

    I know loads of men who have gone to complete ruin once they retired. Not sure why, maybe their identity was too tied up in work, maybe they couldn't handle the empty Tuesday afternoons but for whatever reason, I'd rather work on at some level than go completely off the reservation. The flip side of that is we should all start working part-time earlier in our lives to enjoy the years of good health we have.

    Certainly some jobs you can't do beyond a certain age but a certain amount of those jobs are being automated away every year as it is.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    If the birth rate is low they may have no choice but to raise the pension age , eg it takes X amount of people working to pay for pensions of people over 65 rising House prices mean people will probably have less children in the future experts say we might be heading for a new era of inflation and rising oil prices while wages may not rise at the same rate



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,766 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I don't understand the repeated comments that:

    "the State Pension will eventually be means-tested"


    The current State Pension scheme has two elements:

    (1 = A) social insurance State Pension, based on paying PRSI

    (2 = B) social assistance non-con State Pension, which is means-tested.


    A is not means-tested

    B is means-tested


    People seem to be suggesting a future where:

    A is means-tested

    B still continues as a means-tested non-con pension?


    How could we have two means-tested State Pensions?

    Maybe people mean that in the future we will have just B = the non-con State Pension? I believe the State Pension in Australia is like that.

    If we just have B = non-con pension, then of course PRSI would be cut a lot.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I would say to young people go and enjoy yourself till your late 20’s. If they are talking about retirement age of 72 it will be 75 by time they are old. I wouldn’t advise any young person to start work at 20 and still be working 55 years later.

    Either that or work hard when young, own your own house outright by mid 50’s then drop to a 3 day week from 60 to retirement age. If you have to retire at 75 how much money will you really need from there.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Btw most of those devising this 72 year old retirement age will have their own feet up at no later than 65.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Don't let your lack of knowledge stop you throwing out posts anyway


    Anyone who joined the PS after April 1995 is entitled to a pension made up of the state pension and their occupational pension.


    When the state pension age and conditions change for anyone they change for this entire cohort.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭dubrov


    People are talking about B only, the cost of which will be a lot bigger than now.

    The current PRSI takings will be redirected to cover the increased cost.



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I was talking about the retirement age. CID it goes up to 68 then that won’t affect PS workers. Except maybe the state element.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I dunno, we'd need to know whether free travel, medical card, rent assistance, etc was all still on the table

    No two people hitting 65 are necessarily in the same set of circumstances and very few people aged 65 have the costs associated with being 25, 35, 45, 55.

    The non contributory amount is essentially the dole and like having the dole as your only income at any age, lots of other costs are covered for you

    The conversation really does come back down to the govt being told consistently: we will need to take action now to ensure the safeguarding of our pension system


    The essential issue is the same as it is with anything- who pays for it and what do they get relative to those not contributing



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Great if you've worked in the PS straight out of college. Not so great if you joined later.



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    B will be calculated differently. At the moment you lose significant income for very little savings. In the future, provided private pensions become a common thing, the state pension becomes a top up. No income from private pensions - full state pension. With a private Income of A you get B-A where B is the state pension. Can’t be negative of course. PRSI might change of course.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭JoChervil


    But this 72 pension age will be in 50 years or so, when life expectancy will be longer over 5 years.


    BTW Report of the Commission on Pensions was published yesterday:


    For now it will stay at 66 till 2028 and then it will increase to 67 in a quarterly manner, so no worries. And it is only a proposal, which still can be delayed.





  • Yes, it’s good to keep working at least part-time as long as possible, in principal good for the body and brain if the job is suitable. But not all jobs can be done in older years. Some are head-wrecking or body-wrecking. And saying “we’ll get a job you enjoy” isn’t always an easy solution. There are very unpleasant jobs out there are somebody has to do them. Traditionally students, younger people, or immigrants have gone these less pleasant jobs. But some fairly “responsible” jobs are tedious or unpleasant enough too, and not everyone gets to enjoy being happy in their workplace.

    I worked in a pensionable job until minimum retirement age where there was a great deal of unaddressed and very toxic bullying going on. Stuck with it as far as I could, thankful to have a very modest pension with a little supplementary income and my own decent roof over my head. The thought of having to stay there until my 70s to collect my pension would have done my head in and I simply would not have survived.

    Others work physically hard and as the need for joint replacement etc sets in, the physical work cannot always be continued. I know the current thinking/practice is is keep up education and re-training, so that a manual worker could eventually do less physically based work if needs be. Lifelong learning needs to be a thing embraced by all. There are also people, by virtue of health conditions, who lose a certain aspects of cognitive function (maybe not overall intelligence per se) and simply can’t suddenly turn around and retrain , and this can happen younger people too.

    Overall the idea of “lifelong learning” is a great one. Something started as a hobby could become a source of income at a later stage, so whilst working in one line, a little gradual learning of something completely different but that has the potential to become a means of income, is a mindset that needs to be adopted from the start of anyone’s career.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,676 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Oh I've no doubt some of them would have no problem doing that but if they want to increase their size they need votes from taxpayers as well as their traditional dole lifer voters.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,676 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    I've always worked manual jobs, I'm in good health but I feel it sometimes by the time I finish in the evening and no way can I do the same amount I was able to 20 years ago.

    And before someone says sure change jobs and upskilll I'm late 40s now and once 50 rolls around its a lot harder to start out on a new career competing with better educated younger people.

    65 always seemed like an ideal time to retire, still young enough to travel and do things a person hadn't time to do when they were working but we also have to accept the reality of a changing world where folks are living longer and there are less people to pay for their retirement.





  • It seems people are gradually living slightly longer and longer. A few decades ago there were precious few cards for 90th, 95th, 100th birthdays, but now there is quite a little selection in every card stocking shop. The market for these is clearly growing, and projected to increase. Come a few decades 101-105th cards and even upwards may well be seen on sale, if everything hasn’t gone entirely online.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    They could leave retirement age at 65 buy the rate would need to be reduced, it's about 50% higher than In Northern Ireland and where you have a couple retired, gap is even wider


    It's unwise to completely rely on state supports in old age , people will need to forego luxury expenditure throughout their lives and invest in pensions


    Reality is people don't think ahead



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,766 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    For all PS in the Single PS pension scheme, their PS pension age is the same as the State Pension age.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Working until 72 or physically being able to work until 72 is one thing, but getting hired at age 69 or 70 is another thing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭BrianD3


    Public servants who commenced employment post 1995 (and before the introduction of the Single Scheme) get/should get a supplementary pension so that their total pension is the same as that of a pre 1995er. There are some T&Cs though, AFAIK someone on the supp pension is not allowed to work whereas someone on the old age pension is as are pre 1995 public service pensioners.

    There is widespread confusion about this supplementary pension though, many union people don't have a clue especially if they are pre 1995 and not directly affected. Also, AVC providers are brought into workplaces to try to sell AVCs and surprise surprise they don't mention the supplementary pension because they want to make post 1995 PS pensions seem worse than they are in order to sell AVCs.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    The original public pension system in Prussia was conceived as a mechanism to churn out older workers and swap-in younger (male) workers as the people that ran the state recognized is was a bad idea to have older workers clogging-up critical positions in the economy until they croaked with an army of angry young men looking on cut-out of social mobility. It was a grand bargain to keep society stable. Now it resembles a source of instability and a finish line that younger workers will never reach. Bad news.



Advertisement