When will you be retiring?

Govt spending pension reserve funds on banks wasnt going to be without its costs

http://www.newstalk.ie/news/news-headlines/3retirement-age-increase-part-of-long-term-plan23/

The Taoiseach has confirmed the Government does plan to raise the retirement age – but not in the immediate future.

A new pensions plan will be unveiled by Government this week, which will outline increasing the retirement age beyond 65 in stages.

While up north >>>>>>>>>>>>

NI to cut state pension requirements
The number of years of work required to qualify for a full state pension in Northern Ireland is set to fall substantially.

The Stormont Department of Social Development is also introducing a new pension credit scheme for parents and carers.

At present, men in Northern Ireland need to have paid 40 years of national insurance contributions to get a full state pension.

From April next that contributions' requirement will fall to 30 years of payments.

For women, the target is also going down from 39 years to 30.

The aim is to make sure the state pension is fairer, more accessible and more widely available, and reflects better how people live and work today, the government there said.

Another new scheme will allow people who have put their careers on hold to become carers to build up credits towards a state pension.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0301/pensions.html

BrownianMotion

And how many years do we have to work down here to qualify for a State pension?

It's worth looking at these things in context.

nesf

I'd expect to be retiring at close to 70 in about 40 years time.

draward

if i could get a job i would like to retire after 65 maybe 67,

changes

As soon as possible after the age of 50, as soon as i have my mortgage paid off i'll be working 3 or 4 days a week

P. Breathnach

changes wrote: »

As soon as possible after the age of 50, as soon as i have my mortgage paid off i'll be working 3 or 4 days a week

Nice dream, and I hope it works out for you.

To be realistic, we have to expect retirement age to go up in the future. I think there is a lot of merit in the idea of reducing one's working time after the expensive years are done (mortgage paid off, children reared). Retiring could be a lengthy transition from full-time work through staged reductions to full-time leisure.

murphaph

BrownianMotion wrote: »

And how many years do we have to work down here to qualify for a State pension?

It's worth looking at these things in context.

I think it's 10 years of paying class A PRSI to be entitled to a full state pension upon reaching retirement, right?

I'm personally not complaining, as I have my 10 years in the bag and have left Ireland (may return though). I still pay some taxes in Ireland but not PRSI, so I am grateful that i'll be entitled to the full state pension when I hit 66 (or whatever age it is by then). However, it is actually a stupidly low threshold to trigger a full state pension, especially given how generous our state pension actually is in comparision to say, the UK!

If every country in europe had a similarly low threshold, I would work for a decade in each and clock up 4 state pensions to be paid simultaneously upon retirement. I'd never need my own pension provisions! There will be plenty of folks who migrated to ireland, who will be eligible to receive the full state pension having left ireland many years before.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Nice dream, and I hope it works out for you.

To be realistic, we have to expect retirement age to go up in the future. I think there is a lot of merit in the idea of reducing one's working time after the expensive years are done (mortgage paid off, children reared). Retiring could be a lengthy transition from full-time work through staged reductions to full-time leisure.

Theres one point that wasnt made in this thread

some people like working and/or their jobs and view the idea of "full-time leisure" with horror i cant envision myself "doing nothing", one of the reasons i like this site is that some threads/posts get the brain working and thinking

i would love an early "retirement" in order to concentrate more on reading and research and other pastimes and work (working doesnt have to just return a monetary benefit), for me the most expensive cost (housing) would be out of the way by end of this year once complete building but

the problem lies then in private pensions, i just do not trust them for the life of me, alot of people have seen their private pensions almost disappear and decimated, they could have been better of putting money under mattress :eek:

private pensions are run for the benefit of the fund managers not the "shareholders"

P. Breathnach

People are different. Some are like me, and are pretty good at the leisure thing, while others really value their work as an important part of their lifestyle and even their identity.

So I think I would side with those who say that retirement should not be compulsory.

There is the point that the capacity of some people for the work they do can diminish with age. That is more obvious with jobs that make physical demands, but even with mentally-demanding work people can find that their ability to maintain high levels of concentration over long periods can be reduced. That is why I advocate the option of reduction of working time as people get older.

Obviously it would not suit all situations. In general, an organisation needs full-time people in charge of sections or functions, but some part-timers within a team might be accommodated easily enough.

DanGlee

draward wrote: »

if i could get a job i would like to retire after 65 maybe 67,

Beat me too it

I might just stay out of work, sure there are no jobs out there!!!! (I'm 31 by the way - is that too early for retirement??)

ednwireland

i'd like to retire tomorrow but with my lack of pension provision and the fact that no matter whether compulsory pensions are brought in or not, any investment plan isnt going to provide enough for me to live on ( on my wages) so i will be working till i drop or as long as someone will give me a job

ei.sdraob

ednwireland wrote: »

i'd like to retire tomorrow but with my lack of pension provision and the fact that no matter whether compulsory pensions are brought in or not, any investment plan isnt going to provide enough for me to live on ( on my wages) so i will be working till i drop or as long as someone will give me a job

thats an interesting point

how much does one need to live on before "keeling over"?

considering that mortgage etc "should" be paid by then, and any expenses are mostly medical which "should" be covered by the health system

lets say retire at 65 and die at 85, lets do some maths

200 * 52 * 20 = 208,000 euro one would need to save up

hmm can one live on 200 a week if there is no mortgage and hopefully free healthcare and travel?

ei.sdraob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats an interesting point

how much does one need to live on before "keeling over"?

considering that mortgage etc "should" be paid by then, and any expenses are mostly medical which "should" be covered by the health system

lets say retire at 65 and die at 85, lets do some maths

200 * 52 * 20 = 208,000 euro one would need to save up

hmm can one live on 200 a week if there is no mortgage and hopefully free healthcare and travel?

depends on inflation, how your investments do in comparison to inflation

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/everyone-will-have-to-pay-for-their-pensions-2085378.html

^^ Is this just another tax? think about it they have been using the pension reserve fund for the banks....will anymore money we put into pensions controlled by the state simply end up in the banksIts a goddamn pyramid scheme. When it comes to my turn to retire most of the demographic will have retired already and there wont be as many people to support my cohort in our retirement hence partly why they are increasing the age.

PYRAMID SCHEME!

Mcloke

Do you have to work the 10 years all in one go or can a couple of years here and a couple of years there add up to 10?
Just wondering

Paulzx

murphaph wrote: »

I think it's 10 years of paying class A PRSI to be entitled to a full state pension upon reaching retirement, right?

I'm personally not complaining, as I have my 10 years in the bag and have left Ireland (may return though). I still pay some taxes in Ireland but not PRSI, so I am grateful that i'll be entitled to the full state pension when I hit 66 (or whatever age it is by then). However, it is actually a stupidly low threshold to trigger a full state pension, especially given how generous our state pension actually is in comparision to say, the UK!

If every country in europe had a similarly low threshold, I would work for a decade in each and clock up 4 state pensions to be paid simultaneously upon retirement. I'd never need my own pension provisions! There will be plenty of folks who migrated to ireland, who will be eligible to receive the full state pension having left ireland many years before.

Its not as simple as that. The number of contributions you have will be averaged out over your whole working life ( i.e from the date you first started contributing ). You must reach a certain average (can't remeber the specific figures) to be entitiled to a full state pension. A pro rata pension will also apply for averages below the full one.

If you started working at 20 that leaves 45 working years. Your 10 years of contributions will be divided into this to obtain an average.

jmayo

changes wrote: »

As soon as possible after the age of 50, as soon as i have my mortgage paid off i'll be working 3 or 4 days a week

No kids then ?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

People are different. Some are like me, and are pretty good at the leisure thing, while others really value their work as an important part of their lifestyle and even their identity.

So I think I would side with those who say that retirement should not be compulsory.

There is the point that the capacity of some people for the work they do can diminish with age. That is more obvious with jobs that make physical demands, but even with mentally-demanding work people can find that their ability to maintain high levels of concentration over long periods can be reduced. That is why I advocate the option of reduction of working time as people get older.

Obviously it would not suit all situations. In general, an organisation needs full-time people in charge of sections or functions, but some part-timers within a team might be accommodated easily enough.

Ah but you did work in the public sector did you not ?
Sorry I couldn't resist, must try harder to resist ahhhh

Agree though about part time working suits some people and keeps them active both physically and mentally.
I know so called retired farmers who are still pretty involved in running farm on a daily basis and they are up in their 80s.

In 30 or 40 years time I can see retirement age being 70 plus.
After all the 70 threshold was set by Bismarck and life expectancy was much shorter in those days.
Later chanegd to 65 18 years after his death.

Hagar

Is the going to change employment legislation / company employment policies for retirement at 65 or just not pay the pension until 67/68 or whenever? Is there a danger that companies will retire people at 65 and people will be left without a state pension for a couple of years?

ei.sdraob

Deleted User wrote: »

depends on inflation, how your investments do in comparison to inflation

of course, any savings you make would have to keep up with any inflation in that time

tho right now seeing how all private and public pensions have been "wiped" out, you really do have to wonder

on bright side putting money into pension schemes are tax exempt (at the moment) tho i have a feeling that will change

it was very interesting on RTE the stats last night, current ratio is 6:1 workers to pensioners, this will be 2:1 in 40 years

alot of people entering workforce now may as well forget about receiving a state pension then, it will be next to non-existent by time they retire

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

... Ah but you did work in the public sector did you not ?
Sorry I couldn't resist, must try harder to resist ahhhh ...

You really should try harder.

murphaph

ei.sdraob wrote: »

of course, any savings you make would have to keep up with any inflation in that time

tho right now seeing how all private and public pensions have been "wiped" out, you really do have to wonder

on bright side putting money into pension schemes are tax exempt (at the moment) tho i have a feeling that will change

it was very interesting on RTE the stats last night, current ratio is 6:1 workers to pensioners, this will be 2:1 in 40 years

alot of people entering workforce now may as well forget about receiving a state pension then, it will be next to non-existent by time they retire

it's already almost 2:1 in Italy. I'm not sure why Italy seems to fly below the Radar when talking about Greece and Spain. IMO Spain has a better shot than Italy in the long run.

Irealnd simply must keep upping the retirement age as people live longer and not try to avoid this like the Italians. If it went up in small steps every few years, say a year here and a year there, it would be easier than jacking it up to 70 overnight.

bladespin

Not really keen on retiring anyway, it's a way off still but I'd like to imagine I'd be able to keep working. Looks like the govt agree lol.

ei.sdraob

i think anyone now in their 30s and 40s can effectively forget about getting a pension on retirement and seriously think of plan S (s for saving) for themselves

i wouldn't be surprised if this country defaults in next few years, were already bankrupt

AARRRGH

I remember reading a study about the people who live the longest.

The one thing they all had in common?

They never retire.

Welease

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats an interesting point

how much does one need to live on before "keeling over"?

considering that mortgage etc "should" be paid by then, and any expenses are mostly medical which "should" be covered by the health system

lets say retire at 65 and die at 85, lets do some maths

200 * 52 * 20 = 208,000 euro one would need to save up

hmm can one live on 200 a week if there is no mortgage and hopefully free healthcare and travel?

One of our fund managers gave a presentation to us a few years ago (in the UK), and they were estimating that if you were around 30 or so, you would need to be aiming for about 1 million STG in that pension fund..

True or not.. I have no idea, but that was the ball park figures they were talking about..

It's probably not all that far off if you consider that 208K Euro's now (as per your quick example), is going to be worth a fraction of that in real terms 30 years from now.

ednwireland

AARRRGH wrote: »

I remember reading a study about the people who live the longest.

The one thing they all had in common?

They never retire.

tell that to my dad (retired at 63, he was 90 in jan. !)

yeh i know theres always an exception

ei.sdraob

AARRRGH wrote: »

I remember reading a study about the people who live the longest.

The one thing they all had in common?

They never retire.

this video here > http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html

Welease wrote: »

One of our fund managers gave a presentation to us a few years ago (in the UK), and they were estimating that if you were around 30 or so, you would need to be aiming for about 1 million STG in that pension fund..

True or not.. I have no idea, but that was the ball park figures they were talking about..

It's probably not all that far off if you consider that 208K Euro's now (as per your quick example), is going to be worth a fraction of that in real terms 30 years from now.

yes inflation is a bitch so whatever you invest/save in has to keep up with it, there's no single asset that doesnt go up or down (sorry but property is for living in not investing) so prob best bet is to spread savings/investments around

most of these "funds" put it into stock market, where monkeys have same "luck" as compared to best fund managers over a long term

deise blue

I was able to retire in 2007 on a defined benefit pension and lump sum for which I thank God every day and can't recommend early retirement highly enough !
However I think that such employer largesse is a thing of the past and that everyone in future will be working longer.

ei.sdraob

deise blue wrote: »

However I think that such employer largesse is a thing of the past and that everyone in future will be working longer.

yes working hard to pay for the mistakes of bankers and politicians

oh the joy :P

changes

jmayo wrote: »

No kids then ?

Yeah but he's 11 now, by time he is 23 and the mortgage is well down i'll hope to work 3 or 4 days a week.

If i could work the 3 or 4 days then i'd prob be happy to do that well into my 60's now i think of it.

rightwingdub

The government will have to increase the retirement age to 70 possibly 72, why can't it be done in the next few years, recently Spain increased the retirement age to 67 for people born from 1959 onwards.

We have 3 choices when it comes to pensions.

1) Increase taxes for younger generations to fund an unaffordable pension system.
2) Force people to pay a greater percentage of their salary into private pension schemes.
3) The easiest solution is to increase the retirement age to 70, personally I think the government are been fare too timid on this issue. 68 is not enough.

I'm 29 I can see myself working to 70.

johnnyskeleton

Die in harness. That's the ticket.

dermo88

I'm 33 now. I can easily see myself working until 70, and going part time after that to some degree or other. The idea of retiring, like my Grandparents, sitting down over tea watching Live at Three, dead at Four does not appeal to me at all.

Besides....the nature of work and lifestyles will change dramatically over the next 37 years. There is no way of telling what the world of 2047 will be like, just as there was no way of telling those in 1973 what 2010 would be like.

I doubt they envisaged cheap airline travel, credit cards, internet, mobile phones, fashion, standards of living, health comparable to those today. Although, I am pretty sure they would baulk at the prices.

P. Breathnach

dermo88 wrote: »

... there was no way of telling those in 1973 what 2010 would be like.

I doubt they envisaged cheap airline travel, credit cards, internet, mobile phones, fashion, standards of living, health comparable to those today. Although, I am pretty sure they would baulk at the prices.

I remember 1973 quite well.

The world has not changed as much as you seem to imagine. Yes, there have been technological advances, but many of them were less surprising than you might think: people had some reasonable awareness of where technology was going.

I had long hair then, and wore clothes then that you would now consider ridiculous: platform shoes, bell-bottomed trousers, shirts with bold embroidered patterns -- to work as a civil servant. I had my permanent, pensionable job and didn't think about retirement: it was too far into the future.

One thing was a common attitude then, but seems far less common now. Financial prudence.

dermo88

One thing was a common attitude then, but seems far less common now. Financial prudence.

I would be inclined to agree with that. One thing I was taught as a child was that if I wanted something, I had to save. Debt is more easily accessible, and socially acceptable now. Cash is almost regarded as primitive and backward. I don't feel 'right' if I have not got the equivalent of 50 Pounds (63 Euro) in my wallet, which I suppose is the equivalent of a Fiver back in 1973.

rightwingdub

No Irish government has ever managed the public finances in a sensible manner, that separate manner but I agree financial prudence needs to be radically implemented for the first time ever in this country, ie anyone applying for a mortgage must have to put down at least a 10% deposit and must be clear of any debts for at least 12 months.

ntlbell

The day of my 50th birthday.

Can't bloody wait.

MaceFace

rightwingdub wrote: »

The government will have to increase the retirement age to 70 possibly 72, why can't it be done in the next few years, recently Spain increased the retirement age to 67 for people born from 1959 onwards.

We have 3 choices when it comes to pensions.

1) Increase taxes for younger generations to fund an unaffordable pension system.
2) Force people to pay a greater percentage of their salary into private pension schemes.
3) The easiest solution is to increase the retirement age to 70, personally I think the government are been fare too timid on this issue. 68 is not enough.

I'm 29 I can see myself working to 70.

4) decrease your pension entitlements.

Andrew33

Why not give people the option of retiring at 55-60 with half pension?
This would free up jobs at the other end of the age scale to contribute taxes. Bit of lateral thinking please.
This lark of forcing people to work until 70 and now introducing a compulsory 5% pension levy on everyone(will I get a corresponding reduction in my PRSI? I think not) is just another cynical way of taxing you from cradle to grave. I'm starting to hate this country and its tinpot dictators (FF) on an atomic level.:mad: Can't wait to get out of here.

Andrew33

Andrew33 wrote: »

Why not give people the option of retiring at 55-60 with half pension?
This would free up jobs at the other end of the age scale to contribute taxes. Bit of lateral thinking please.
This lark of forcing people to work until 70 and now introducing a compulsory 5% pension levy on everyone(will I get a corresponding reduction in my PRSI? I think not) is just another cynical way of taxing you from cradle to grave. I'm starting to hate this country and its tinpot dictators (FF) on an atomic level.:mad: Can't wait to get out of here.

Best part of it all is that its a pyramid scheme

P. Breathnach

MaceFace wrote: »

4) decrease your pension entitlements.

It is something that we have to consider. But, as a pensioner, I suggest that people view the option with caution. It is good to have a pension that does a bit more than put the cheapest food on the table and half-heats the house. You might not need a pension equivalent to €100k at today's prices, but you could reasonably aspire to a bit more than €10k.

Life does not stop with retirement (well, not immediately). I still want to run a car, have the occasional meal out, go away now and again, and have the occasional bottle of wine with dinner.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Life does not stop with retirement (well, not immediately). I still want to run a car, have the occasional meal out, go away now and again, and have the occasional bottle of wine with dinner.

Sounds like you should have kept working

Sleepy

OR we could look at option E: huge inheritance taxes. Take 75% of every dying person's estate and use that to fund the pensions.

kippy

Sleepy wrote: »

OR we could look at option E: huge inheritance taxes. Take 75% of every dying person's estate and use that to fund the pensions.

Yeah, thats pretty fair and well thought out......

dunsandin

It is funny to see the new proposal being kited that we must all soon contribute to a semi-compulsory pension fund for ourselves. Having trained as a pension and insurance "adviser" (read salesman with a better title) when I left school, I regard the whole idea of being compelled(I realise there is an opt out clause, but opter-outers will probably be penalised in some way) to contribute to a pension pyramid scheme, sorry, scheme, with disgust. Pension funds tend to be run to the benefit of the schemers, rather than the pensioners. Pensions are a bit like vouchers- you take your perfectly good, valid anywhere money and swap it for a piece of paper to be traded at the discression of the issuer. With a pension, you inject your capital and then hope they don't lose it, until you reach the stage when you are ready for them to drip-feed it back to you on their terms, not yours. I will happily continue to make my own provisions for my retirement, without their kind assistance. I wonder is this scheme being introduced because the NPRF has made such crap investments with the pensioners money that it is now nearly broke? Or are they planning to use this "handy money" to plug some other fiscal gap that has emerged. A bit like the Road fund licence money(ie car tax) is spent on just about everything except the roads.

kippy

dunsandin wrote: »

It is funny to see the new proposal being kited that we must all soon contribute to a semi-compulsory pension fund for ourselves. Having trained as a pension and insurance "adviser" (read salesman with a better title) when I left school, I regard the whole idea of being compelled(I realise there is an opt out clause, but opter-outers will probably be penalised in some way) to contribute to a pension pyramid scheme, sorry, scheme, with disgust. Pension funds tend to be run to the benefit of the schemers, rather than the pensioners. Pensions are a bit like vouchers- you take your perfectly good, valid anywhere money and swap it for a piece of paper to be traded at the discression of the issuer. With a pension, you inject your capital and then hope they don't lose it, until you reach the stage when you are ready for them to drip-feed it back to you on their terms, not yours. I will happily continue to make my own provisions for my retirement, without their kind assistance. I wonder is this scheme being introduced because the NPRF has made such crap investments with the pensioners money that it is now nearly broke? Or are they planning to use this "handy money" to plug some other fiscal gap that has emerged. A bit like the Road fund licence money(ie car tax) is spent on just about everything except the roads.

The more I look at economics (from a very lay point of view) the more I believe almost all financial schemes are some form of a pyramid scheme anyway......from pension schemes to property.

dunsandin

Probably true Kippy, but you are not compelled to join them, with this, you will be.

kippy

dunsandin wrote: »

Probably true Kippy, but you are not compelled to join them, with this, you will be.

True.
I havent looked at the ins and out of this yet but it looks a tad unfair and as you say further opportunity to provide more money to financial institutions, directly or indirectly, and a further slush fund to dip into when the states finances are in bits.
I've personally had no choice about my pension for the past 3 years but such were the terms of my employment. It wasnt something I worried about till I was around 25 anyway.
The flip side of it is, even if you arent directly involved with these pyramid schemes, you might as well be as you'll end up bailing them out in the end anyway when things do go belly up. (Irish style)

Andrew33

Hear hear to both Dunsandin and Kippy, couldn't agree with yiz more. The whole govt thing becomes more medieval by the day, when I was a kid I used to think the sherrif onf nottingham was a really evil man, he was nothin' compared to the posse of stinking corrupt tossers in Leinster Hse.:mad:

theft coercion fraud