The privileged status of the elderly

Fo Real

I was getting a Bus Éireann bus along a popular commuter route today and was shocked to find that I was the only customer who actually paid for his ticket. I felt like such a sucker. The whole bottom deck was occupied by OAPs with their free travel passes and a couple of teenage mums with prams.

It got me thinking: Surely society should place more emphasis on giving financial support to young people starting out in life. They need the money more than the elderly. Old people's lives are bascially over. They are merely clinging onto life with their fingernails as the grim reaper is dragging them towards the grave.

Take the cuts announced in the last budget, for example. Almost every sector in society saw a cut in their income, including the disabled, but not the pensioners, who collect a nice €200 every week. An old couple would therefore rake in €400 between them to squander on lottery tickets, on top of their free travel, fuel expenses etc... Have you ever seen anyone under the age of 50 on RTÉ's Winning Streak gameshow? Every week it's grey haired gamblers winning thousands of euro and I'm thinking how that bit of money could completely change my life and that of my peers. Us young people are facing a future of sky high mortages and an employment landscape devoid of jobs. It's harder than ever to "begin life" which is why so many choose to continue in education for as long as possible and have no option but to live with their parents well into their 20's.

Logic would dictate that the dwindling numbers of youths will not be able to support the growing elderly population for much longer. This trend is unsustainable.

What are your thoughts on the privilged status of the elderly? Are they the most deserving candidates for all the benefits they receive?

Victor

Fo Real wrote: »

I was getting a Bus Éireann bus along a popular commuter route today and was shocked to find that I was the only customer who actually paid for his ticket. I felt like such a sucker.

Everyone pays, just in different ways. Those pensioners paid for your education.

The whole bottom deck was occupied by OAPs with their free travel passes and a couple of teenage mums with prams.

Why do you think the teenage mums didn't pay? Of course, the government has paid (something) for the pensioners to travel and few companies charge for toddlers to travel as it encourages their parents to travel. However, it is a useful source of income for the transport companies and it can be provided at lower cost.

It got me thinking: Surely society should place more emphasis on giving financial support to young people starting out in life.

You don't think people actually pay (upfront) anything like the full economic cost of their education and childhood healthcare, do you?

Take the cuts announced in the last budget, for example. Almost every sector in society saw a cut in their income, including the disabled, but not the pensioners, who collect a nice €200 every week. An old couple would therefore rake in €400 between them to squander on lottery tickets, on top of their free travel, fuel expenses etc...

I'm not sure, but I don't think those figures are correct. I think the single pension is about €240 and for a couple about €360.

Have you ever seen anyone under the age of 50 on RTÉ's Winning Streak gameshow? Every week it's grey haired gamblers winning thousands of euro and I'm thinking how that bit of money could completely change my life and that of my peers. Us young people are facing a future of sky high mortages and an employment landscape devoid of jobs. It's harder than ever to "begin life" which is why so many choose to continue in education for as long as possible and have no option but to live with their parents well into their 20's.

Because all the 20-somethings are down the pub?

Now, yes, we need to look at how we finance retirement, but I'm not sure if your arguments are the right ones.

Fo Real

I accept that a child's education is paid for by worker's taxes. In theory, the child will grow up to work and pay taxes also, thereby making a net contribution to the system. I have no problem supporting the disabled and the temporary unemployed. Yes, the elderly also deserve financial assistance but they are currently paid too much while the youth are paid too little.

OAPs don't have families to provide for. They don't need to pay rent/mortgage. A lot of their fuel, electricity, travel and phone bills are subsidised. Their only expense is food, which hardly justifies the €240 weekly pension. €140 a week is sufficient to buy food with loads left over for little luxuries - new TV, save towards a holiday or whatever. Why should students live in manky bedsits for 4 years of college, eating beans and toast, while pensioners are squandering money on bingo?

You are right in your assertion that we need to re-examine how we fund retirement. There will be too few workers supporting too many pensioners if current trends continue. Immigration is sometimes mentioned as a solution but this opens a whole new can of worms.

looksee

I think Fo Real raises some important points. Once your working life is over you are just a liability and a burden on society. You are not filling any useful purpose so why hang around? As Fo Real says, hanging on by fingernails, what's the point.

Maybe at retirement you should have a permanent 'goodbye' party, a real, final bash (though not lasting too long as you would be too past it to enjoy it) and then a nice dose of something painless and off to valhalla, or where-ever. It would have the real advantage of ploughing your money back into circulation and relieve some younger people of mortgages and student fees.

Of course this might be a problem to some people who have strong feelings about right to life and stuff, so maybe old people could be transferred into basic accommodation so that they just die quickly, naturally.

It need not be too expensive, these people started out being used to having very little, 60 or 70 years ago there were no computers and televisions and expensive things like that, food was plain, they didn't have stuff like central heating and washing machines, cars or foreign holidays so they would be used to doing without them.

I think Fo Real has something here, and you could include people who are sick or disabled as well. And unemployed. And people who have children outside marriage, well women anyway. Do you know I think this could be the solution to Ireland's financial crisis. Its worth thinking about anyway.

patwicklow

Well considering that they paid there taxes all there working life dont you think they deserve there old age pension? like i could.nt live on €200 odd a week could you? and dont forget that one day you to will reach that great age! and another thing life was not easy for them in there working life unlike today, so give them a break and respect you elders..

Victor

While I detect your post it tongue in cheek.

looksee wrote: »

I think Fo Real raises some important points. Once your working life is over you are just a liability and a burden on society.

Many people do some work beyond the age of retirement, e.g. my brother's mother-in-law acted as child minder when his wife returned to work.

Babooshka

Fo Real wrote: »

What are your thoughts on the privilged status of the elderly? Are they the most deserving candidates for all the benefits they receive?

It's not that priveleged unless you've worked hard (or worked as a politician;)) and reaped the benefits of a lofty pension. A lot of the people you're talking about have had to suck it up through lots of hard times in the past and work hard to provide for their young and sacrificed big things all their lives, some of them sacrificed their life for the most part to provide for their kids.

Even if (I don't know if it's intended this way, but anyway) your post is poking at people to get a strong reaction, it does raise questions that I think we're all facing for years to come. From a personal viewpoint, I am not sure I will plan a family now, as the decision I need to make is very much based on why it will be of benefit to anyone if I do, and I mean that from the viewpoint of how I will afford to provide for them, what good can come of it if I endeavour to do so, will I just struggle to give them a good life, and will, on the grander scale of things any of it make any difference to the world if I didn't and would it be such a terrible thing if I don't, for them as well, who'd want to bring children into a world that's going to be too much of a struggle for them?

My personal feelings about it, (being that I love children and would love and crave the affection of a child) are in flux now more than ever, especially reading your post though, as it has made me see that more and more our world is becoming one of seperate beings without any empathy for those around us and it's all about how we as individuals matter more than anyone else beside us, and how sad that is. Our world is getting stranger and weirder by the minute, and probably because our own country is so troubled with financial matters right now, it's a grab all you can attitude and feck everyone else for a lot of people.

I hope it makes for big chages in the psyche of our society and that on some level our consciousness heightens to realise that we all matter and that going forward we need to sort ourselves out. But not by neglecting or denying our old people some priveleges.....they've spent their whole life getting out of bed and facing the same struggles that you're facing now, they've been through all of your pains and more, don't you think you'll deserve some comforts after a lifetime of the sh*te we all go through every day. I'd hope that you, me and everyone breathing will. Well no scuh luck now, as I'm not at retirement age and I'm up at 6, so adios for now amigos

Zombrex

Fo Real wrote: »

It got me thinking: Surely society should place more emphasis on giving financial support to young people starting out in life. They need the money more than the elderly.

Young people work, or get the dole. Why do they need money more than the elderly?

Fo Real wrote: »

Old people's lives are bascially over.

Exactly, they are no longer working. Hence the pension, State or otherwise.

You seem to be contradicting your own argument here. The whole reason old people get a pension is because they are not longer working. The whole reason young people don't get a similar amount of money is because they are working.

Fo Real wrote: »

Take the cuts announced in the last budget, for example. Almost every sector in society saw a cut in their income, including the disabled, but not the pensioners, who collect a nice €200 every week. An old couple would therefore rake in €400 between them to squander on lottery tickets, on top of their free travel, fuel expenses etc... Have you ever seen anyone under the age of 50 on RTÉ's Winning Streak gameshow?

What they spend the money on is as irrelevant as what you spend your money on.

Fo Real wrote: »

Us young people are facing a future of sky high mortages and an employment landscape devoid of jobs.

Hence the dole.

Fo Real wrote: »

What are your thoughts on the privilged status of the elderly? Are they the most deserving candidates for all the benefits they receive?

Yes, most of them have spent a life time paying taxes.

What have the youth of today done apart from spend the taxes paid for by people now in retirement?

irishh_bob

patwicklow wrote: »

Well considering that they paid there taxes all there working life dont you think they deserve there old age pension? like i could.nt live on €200 odd a week could you? and dont forget that one day you to will reach that great age! and another thing life was not easy for them in there working life unlike today, so give them a break and respect you elders..

if i was getting what OAP ,s get each week , not only could i live on it , i could save 100 euro per week of it , its is more than double what pensioners recieve in the uk and a retired couple in ireland will recieve almost three times as much between them as in the uk

medical card , free phone , electricity , fuel allowance , free travel , living alone allowance for widows or widowers , thees are the added perks that OAP,s recieve along with 232 ( contributory ) and 218 ( non contributory ) , those on the non contributory need not have ever worked a day in thier lives and they still recieve 218 + perks , the only expense pensioners have is food and petrol if they wish to drive

the elderly in this country are spoiled beyond belief but this will continue to be the case as any goverment that is elected has almost universal support to continue indulging this sacred cow and perenially reliable voter , irish people have a habbit of being redicolously sentimental and mushy headed for certain groups in society and so long as the majority of people susbscribe to the notion of the pensioners who for 50 years dug ditches and who now lives in a thatched cottage with no central heating and only irelands own to read while sitting beside a turf fire , then spoiled they will continue to be

Fo Real

irishh_bob wrote: »

the elderly in this country are spoiled beyond belief but this will continue to be the case as any goverment that is elected has almost universal support to continue indulging this sacred cow and perenially reliable voter , irish people have a habbit of being redicolously sentimental and mushy headed for certain groups in society

You have hit the nail on the head. The elderly in this country have an outrageous sense of entitlement and the government will always give into their demands because they know they can always rely on old Biddy's vote - once they keep her sweet. The OAPs are entrenched in their voting habits and will likely remain loyal to a particular party all their life, unless something barbaric is committed by their party of choice - like insisting the elderly pay for their bus ticket like everyone else.

There are no repercussions for cutting the social welfare to the disabled as this cohort cannot stand up for itself and protest on the streets. Whereas the OAPs, who generally have nothing better to do than occupy shopping centre benches, will jump at the chance of a "day out" to the Dáil for a protest.

ChocolateSauce

Fo Real wrote: »

Old people's lives are bascially over.

Well in that case maybe we should just shuttle them to the gas chamber, no? It'd be cheaper than paying for meds that just prolong their miserable existence.

irishh_bob

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well in that case maybe we should just shuttle them to the gas chamber, no? It'd be cheaper than paying for meds that just prolong their miserable existence.

this is the default possition of most people when you dare to question the level of wellfare payments to senior citizens

its tedious in the extreme

irishh_bob

Fo Real wrote: »

You have hit the nail on the head. The elderly in this country have an outrageous sense of entitlement and the government will always give into their demands because they know they can always rely on old Biddy's vote - once they keep her sweet. The OAPs are entrenched in their voting habits and will likely remain loyal to a particular party all their life, unless something barbaric is committed by their party of choice - like insisting the elderly pay for their bus ticket like everyone else.

There are no repercussions for cutting the social welfare to the disabled as this cohort cannot stand up for itself and protest on the streets. Whereas the OAPs, who generally have nothing better to do than occupy shopping centre benches, will jump at the chance of a "day out" to the Dáil for a protest.

im not just refering to senior citizen voters , the majority of voters across all ages support the present wellfare policys towards the elderly , most buy into the notion that the old are inherently weak , vulnerable and poor

think about it , whenever you listen to a vox pop on the radio , the person being interviewed , when asked what they dislike about goverment policy , along with the usual talk of no job creation , cuts in dole , people lying on trolleys , they will manage to fit in the pensioners , this despite the fact that pensioners have been completley shielded from the rescession and who in real terms have seen thier payments go up due to the cost of living reduction in the past few years

looksee

irishh_bob wrote: »

im not just refering to senior citizen voters , the majority of voters across all ages support the present wellfare policys towards the elderly , most buy into the notion that the old are inherently weak , vulnerable and poor

think about it , whenever you listen to a vox pop on the radio , the person being interviewed , when asked what they dislike about goverment policy , along with the usual talk of no job creation , cuts in dole , people lying on trolleys , they will manage to fit in the pensioners , this despite the fact that pensioners have been completley shielded from the rescession and who in real terms have seen thier payments go up due to the cost of living reduction in the past few years

Not sure what age you are irishh_bob, but its a fair bet that your parents raised you through the last recession(s). And if you are under 30 you may well be under the impression that the celtic tiger years were the norm, in fact we went very suddenly from struggling to relative wealth and back to struggling again. I know it is all relative, but from my memory, the 70s and 80s were way more impoverished than we are now, and just as insecure. Look at how many people regard computers and broadband as basic essentials now!

Rubik.

A recent OECD report compared how effectively state pension systems provide income during retirement to replace earnings which were the main source of income prior to retirement across the 30 OECD countries, Ireland came second last. A comparison between here and the UK is bound to come up in the thread - it came last. It also found that Ireland has the lowest state spending on pensions as a percentage of GDP in the OECD.

The international measure of poverty is having an income below half the median household income, in 2005 30% of Irish OAP's had incomes below this level. Only 3 OCED countries had more OAP's living in poverty.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/24/43126097.pdf

ChocolateSauce

irishh_bob wrote: »

this is the default possition of most people when you dare to question the level of wellfare payments to senior citizens

its tedious in the extreme

All I did was point out the folly of treating them like cattle. I didn't give any indication of my opinion on the amount of money they receive.

irishh_bob

Rubik. wrote: »

A recent OECD report compared how effectively state pension systems provide income during retirement to replace earnings which were the main source of income prior to retirement across the 30 OECD countries, Ireland came second last. A comparison between here and the UK is bound to come up in the thread - it came last. It also found that Ireland has the lowest state spending on pensions as a percentage of GDP in the OECD.

The international measure of poverty is having an income below half the median household income, in 2005 30% of Irish OAP's had incomes below this level. Only 3 OCED countries had more OAP's living in poverty.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/24/43126097.pdf

i have a problem with your starting point , half the average industrial wage in this country is 17500 euro , this to me does not constitute living in poverty , those research groups have no credibility

irishh_bob

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

All I did was point out the folly of treating them like cattle. I didn't give any indication of my opinion on the amount of money they receive.

straw man arguement

irishh_bob

looksee wrote: »

Not sure what age you are irishh_bob, but its a fair bet that your parents raised you through the last recession(s). And if you are under 30 you may well be under the impression that the celtic tiger years were the norm, in fact we went very suddenly from struggling to relative wealth and back to struggling again. I know it is all relative, but from my memory, the 70s and 80s were way more impoverished than we are now, and just as insecure. Look at how many people regard computers and broadband as basic essentials now!

no idea what this post means

looksee

irishh_bob wrote: »

no idea what this post means

If you look back at my post you will see that I have quoted you and bolded this bit:

this despite the fact that pensioners have been completley shielded from the rescession and who in real terms have seen thier payments go up due to the cost of living reduction in the past few years

I was commenting on the idea that pensioners have been shielded from the recession - most pensioners have a lot of experience of recessions having lived through, and raised families in - previous ones. Many now-pensioners lived frugal lives and struggled to raise families. The cost of living reduction is a relief and a blessing. Granted the last few years were more comfortable but saving for a pension and paying a mortgage for the previous 30 or 40 years meant that very few of them had the money for holidays and luxuries that have become more familiar in the past few years.

Do you remember when most of the cars in the country were held together with baling twine? When adding vat to childrens' shoes brought down the government? When trailer loads of secondhand furniture were imported because most people could not afford anything else? You are badly stuck for someone to blame - or you are trolling.

Quentinkrisp

there's a well known quote that can be attributed to numerous historical figures such as churchill and gandhi: A society is judged by how it treats it's weakest members.

To echo looksees' post, a lot of the elderly that the OP is referring to have grown up in a different generation to us (obviously). they grew up in a time when there was almost no disposable income, no welfare, no opportunities bar emigration, education was a privilege and poverty was endemic. They would have worked for many decades in often-unsafe conditions to feed their children and for their own survival. Hence I would not begrudge them the benefits of retirement and basic respect.

this 'old people are a burden on the state' spiel is pure nonsense is just unfair scapegoating tbh. If the OP needs someone to blame for the current recession, then look no further than the government, who have happily sold out this country and destroyed the economy just to line their own pockets.

Fo Real

Most people here are talking about OAPs in isolation. I'm talking about them in comparison to young people (and also the diasbled). To simplify my question: why are old people treated as uniquely "special" and deserving of so many benefits when other sectors of society would benefit more?

In response to the poster above:

A society is judged by how it treats it's weakest members.

I'd consider the mentally disabled the most vulnerable in our society. Yet you are content with cutting their benefits (because they aren't voters, eh?) but the elderly remain untouchable.

Imagine this scenario: You come across a starving child and a starving pensioner in the desert. You only have enough food to save one of them. Who do you save? Personally I'd save the child as he has a whole future ahead of him and has so much more to offer the world.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

looksee

I think a more rational argument about the cost of supporting an elderly population would be to look at the way in which care is provided.

At the moment if an elderly person cannot take care of him or herself, the only alternative is to put them into nursing homes at staggering expense, either to themself or to the state. Elderly people who cannot be placed in nursing homes for whatever reason are also taking up bed spaces in the hospitals, at huge expense. Neither of these are sensible solutions.

If the government invested in sheltered housing and properly supervised carers, even subsidised it would be vastly less expensive than the current situation. These warden-managed flats and bungalows in the UK are provided free to people who have been in council houses. It frees up a council house rather than having just one person in it, and puts the elderly person in a safe and secure environment.

I don't think it is necessary to provide it free, if there is a pension, which there always is, a proportion of it could be recouped to pay part of the cost of the housing. People who have means would have to pay up to the full amount of the rent and services.

My own mother is in this kind of accommodation in the UK, paying rent and services as she had a small house which was sold. She is one of the very few in the complex actually paying rent, but still she has a very nice, safe flat, and a little independence. As her health is precarious she would otherwise be in a nursing home, and miserable.

This is the kind of area in which savings could be made, and at the same time provide carer jobs for a significant number of people.

Elderly people see their security, in the form of the value of their property, being whittled away and they have no idea what will happen to them as they get less able to live independently. Some proper organisation at this stage, assuming the costing and building were done honestly, could pay for itself in the medium term, and provide work in the building and management, and in employment of carers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Quentinkrisp

Fo Real wrote: »

In response to the poster above:


I'd consider the mentally disabled the most vulnerable in our society.

Ok, if that's what you think, but i will have to disagree with you on this.
The term 'most vulnerable' can also encompass the elderly, the physically disabled, the financially disadvantaged, the homeless and even drug users as well - also, anybody who may have found themselves being marginalized by society for whatever reason.

I certainly don't dispute the fact that the mentally disabled are vulnerable members of society, but it would be quite shortsighted to apply the term 'most vulnerabe' exclusively to them

Yet you are content with cutting their benefits (because they aren't voters, eh?) but the elderly remain untouchable.

No, i never said that at all. It's a strawman argument that I strongly disagree with.

Imagine this scenario: You come across a starving child and a starving pensioner in the desert. You only have enough food to save one of them. Who do you save? Personally I'd save the child as he has a whole future ahead of him and has so much more to offer the world.

Hmmm, a moral brainteaser. In my case I would divide what food I had between the two of them. that's my answer to that for better or for worse.

Fittle

Youth is wasted on the young.

I've nothing else to say.

irishh_bob

looksee wrote: »

If you look back at my post you will see that I have quoted you and bolded this bit:

this despite the fact that pensioners have been completley shielded from the rescession and who in real terms have seen thier payments go up due to the cost of living reduction in the past few years

I was commenting on the idea that pensioners have been shielded from the recession - most pensioners have a lot of experience of recessions having lived through, and raised families in - previous ones. Many now-pensioners lived frugal lives and struggled to raise families. The cost of living reduction is a relief and a blessing. Granted the last few years were more comfortable but saving for a pension and paying a mortgage for the previous 30 or 40 years meant that very few of them had the money for holidays and luxuries that have become more familiar in the past few years.

Do you remember when most of the cars in the country were held together with baling twine? When adding vat to childrens' shoes brought down the government? When trailer loads of secondhand furniture were imported because most people could not afford anything else? You are badly stuck for someone to blame - or you are trolling.

so what your saying is that we need to continue maintaining boom time wellfare payments to pensioners as a way of compensating them for having had to endure primitive past motoring technology :rolleyes:

Rubik.

irishh_bob wrote: »

i have a problem with your starting point , half the average industrial wage in this country is 17500 euro , this to me does not constitute living in poverty , those research groups have no credibility

Whether you agree or not with their definition of poverty, more OAP's in Ireland had an income of less than the median household income than 27 of the 30 OECD counties.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Rubik. wrote: »

Ireland has the lowest state spending on pensions as a percentage of GDP in the OECD.

I haven't looked at the detail of the linked report, but Ireland tends to look bad on any measure based on % of GDP. This is because our GDP is overstated because of the size of the multi-national sector, who tend to book their profits in Ireland to avail of our low Corporation Tax rate.

I'd also suspect that our population is younger than a lot of OECD countries. Our pension bubble isn't going to burst for another few years, where most of Europe are hitting that wall now.

The bottom line is that generous benefits for pensioners are only affordable if pensioners are a small proportion of the population. Its only common sense.

Rubik.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I haven't looked at the detail of the linked report, but Ireland tends to look bad on any measure based on % of GDP. This is because our GDP is overstated because of the size of the multi-national sector, who tend to book their profits in Ireland to avail of our low Corporation Tax rate.

Even if GNP was used to make the comparison, Ireland would come in last of the OECD countries.

johnmcdnl

The pensioners worked before the celtic tiger so times were actually tough - unlike the unemployed 80 years old mrs smyth can't get a job to help pay the bills...

young people can live in a cold flat - might be hard for a few months but if you try hard enough you'll get a job and be able to pay for the heating - cut the pensioners money and suddenly mrs smyth can't afford to pay the heating or can't pay for the bus into town to get the groceries - mrs smyth is found dead in her cold flat a week after she dies because the post man notices the heap of letters in her hall...

the pensioners built the country and worked for 40 years and are now unable to work to support themselves - their not using their benefits because they can - their using them because they have too..

you can walk to the shops can't you at the worst of times - unfortunately a lot of elderly people can't - that's why they have their free travel passes and you don't - it's not so they can go on holidays across the country every weekend for free - it's to help them get to the shops and to the doctors

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Rubik. wrote: »

Even if GNP was used to make the comparison, Ireland would come in last of the OECD countries.

I've read the linked document, but I don't see where it says this. I'm not necessarily contesting what you say. But would you be able to provide a link that demonstrates it?

johnmcdnl wrote: »

the pensioners built the country and worked for 40 years

I'm not particularly arguing against the idea that indigent people should get support. But I have to admit I find that individual point just a little jarring.

What largely built the country over the last forty years was foriegn capital, in one form or another. The reason we needed the foriegn capital was because the workforce over the last forty years was generally unwilling to forgo current consumption, save and invest.

Put it in other terms, we didn't inherit a debt-free nation. And it looks like this pattern will repeat - the next generation will have even more debt to repay.

By all means, advocate public spending to support pensioners if you will. But let's not invent some moral obligation, pretending that we received some marvelous legacy from them. The society they participated in was, in many ways, as odd as two left feet. The more we find out about it, the more I really wonder what it was all about.

Apologies on the largely off-topic thrust of that. But I really find that 'they built this country' cliche annoying.

Rubik.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've read the linked document, but I don't see where it says this. I'm not necessarily contesting what you say. But would you be able to provide a link that demonstrates it?

"Ireland has the lowest State spending on social security-based pensions in the EU, at 2.5%. of GNP."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2007/1009/ireland/how-state-promotes-serious-inequalities-in-pensions-44725.html

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Rubik. wrote: »

"Ireland has the lowest State spending on social security-based pensions in the EU, at 2.5%. of GNP."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2007/1009/ireland/how-state-promotes-serious-inequalities-in-pensions-44725.html

I'd suspect that the people quoted in that Irish Examiner report may be doing some massaging of figures. The OECD document linked in the OP puts our public pension spending at 3.4% of GDP. Our GNP is something of the order of 20% lower than our GDP. It simply defies the laws of physics for the percentage share of GNP to be lower than the percentage share of GDP.

I'd suspect that, like so many policy agendas, we've vested interests trying to make things look worse than they really are.

Penny Dreadful

Fo Real wrote: »

I was getting a Bus Éireann bus along a popular commuter route today and was shocked to find that I was the only customer who actually paid for his ticket. I felt like such a sucker. The whole bottom deck was occupied by OAPs with their free travel passes and a couple of teenage mums with prams.

It got me thinking: Surely society should place more emphasis on giving financial support to young people starting out in life. They need the money more than the elderly. Old people's lives are bascially over. They are merely clinging onto life with their fingernails as the grim reaper is dragging them towards the grave.

Take the cuts announced in the last budget, for example. Almost every sector in society saw a cut in their income, including the disabled, but not the pensioners, who collect a nice €200 every week. An old couple would therefore rake in €400 between them to squander on lottery tickets, on top of their free travel, fuel expenses etc... Have you ever seen anyone under the age of 50 on RTÉ's Winning Streak gameshow? Every week it's grey haired gamblers winning thousands of euro and I'm thinking how that bit of money could completely change my life and that of my peers. Us young people are facing a future of sky high mortages and an employment landscape devoid of jobs. It's harder than ever to "begin life" which is why so many choose to continue in education for as long as possible and have no option but to live with their parents well into their 20's.

Logic would dictate that the dwindling numbers of youths will not be able to support the growing elderly population for much longer. This trend is unsustainable.

What are your thoughts on the privilged status of the elderly? Are they the most deserving candidates for all the benefits they receive?

So you think David Attenborough who is 85 years old is simply clinging on??
My father (wh0 is 70) is a retired Garda on a pension and his pension was cut and now he is down a grand total of €238 per month after tax. I think this is terribly unfair as he paid over 50% tax when that was the norm and was paying off a mortgage when interest rates were close to 20%. He and many others in this generation paid their way through the first recession and now are expected to cough up again for this one. :mad:

irishh_bob

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

So you think David Attenborough who is 85 years old is simply clinging on??
My father (wh0 is 70) is a retired Garda on a pension and his pension was cut and now he is down a grand total of €238 per month after tax. I think this is terribly unfair as he paid over 50% tax when that was the norm and was paying off a mortgage when interest rates were close to 20%. He and many others in this generation paid their way through the first recession and now are expected to cough up again for this one. :mad:

bar politicans , no one in the public sector have more generous terms for thier pension than guards , were i ( private sector ) to build a private pension ( DC ) which was equal to that of a guard , i would need to put away 48% of my income each week , do you think a guard contributes that much of thier salary towards thier pension :rolleyes:


add to that the fact that technically a guard can retire at 50 , you could end up with a situation where many guards were longer in reciept of a pension than actually working , the situation with public sector pensions was ( and still is ) unsustainable , the recent budget cuts were nothing

Penny Dreadful

irishh_bob wrote: »

bar politicans , no one in the public sector have more generous terms for thier pension than guards , were i ( private sector ) to build a private pension ( DC ) which was equal to that of a guard , i would need to put away 48% of my income each week , do you think a guard contributes that much of thier salary towards thier pension :rolleyes:


add to that the fact that technically a guard can retire at 50 , you could end up with a situation where many guards were longer in reciept of a pension than actually working , the situation with public sector pensions was ( and still is ) unsustainable , the recent budget cuts were nothing

I think the Gardaí put themselves on the line a lot, way more so that people in the private sector and they have to deal with so much abuse and so many scumbags on a daily basis that I do think they deserve their pensions.

irishh_bob

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

I think the Gardaí put themselves on the line a lot, way more so that people in the private sector and they have to deal with so much abuse and so many scumbags on a daily basis that I do think they deserve their pensions.

private sector workers are not paid out of the public purse and besides , thier isnt really any comparable job to that of a guard in the private sector so its apples and oranges , no one is saying guards dont deserve a pension , the point being made is that the terms of thier pension are unafordable considering the condition the country is in , index linked pensions are simply unsustainable

Penny Dreadful

irishh_bob wrote: »

private sector workers are not paid out of the public purse and besides , thier isnt really any comparable job to that of a guard in the private sector so its apples and oranges , no one is saying guards dont deserve a pension , the point being made is that the terms of thier pension are unafordable considering the condition the country is in , index linked pensions are simply unsustainable

While private sector workers are not paid out of the public purse it seems to be overlooked that public sector workers pay taxes that go back into the system. The idea that they bleed the country dry and just take take take is incorrect.
While the pensions paid out now (although they have been cut considerably) may seem high given the financial status of the country, are fair IMHO because the people drawing them down have paid their high taxes to earn them. Cutting their income may lead to other stresses on they system e.g. someone not being able to afford their home heating, cannot pay their phone bills and so get cut off and isolated, etc.

irishh_bob

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

While private sector workers are not paid out of the public purse it seems to be overlooked that public sector workers pay taxes that go back into the system. The idea that they bleed the country dry and just take take take is incorrect.
While the pensions paid out now (although they have been cut considerably) may seem high given the financial status of the country, are fair IMHO because the people drawing them down have paid their high taxes to earn them. Cutting their income may lead to other stresses on they system e.g. someone not being able to afford their home heating, cannot pay their phone bills and so get cut off and isolated, etc.

so whats your solution to the future pension crisis , we will become more of an ageing society in the years to come , how do you suggest we deal with funding our retirement

Penny Dreadful

irishh_bob wrote: »

so whats your solution to the future pension crisis , we will become more of an ageing society in the years to come , how do you suggest we deal with funding our retirement

Pension arrangements for those now entering the public service are different. I say leave those who are on their pensions now as they are, the pensions have already been cut and that is what it is but I would not advocate any further erosion of these pensions.

irishh_bob

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Pension arrangements for those now entering the public service are different. I say leave those who are on their pensions now as they are, the pensions have already been cut and that is what it is but I would not advocate any further erosion of these pensions.

your entire possition appears to be driven by self interest , your dad ( a retired guard ) saw a modest cut to his index linked very generous pension and your only policy suggestion regarding pension provision in the future is that those on a pension should see no further cuts , its quite a narrow thesis

Penny Dreadful

irishh_bob wrote: »

your entire possition appears to be driven by self interest , your dad ( a retired guard ) saw a modest cut to his index linked very generous pension and your only policy suggestion regarding pension provision in the future is that those on a pension should see no further cuts , its quite a narrow thesis

I'm not going to deny that there is a bias towards the retired Gardaí, how could I ?:)
However, my parents are not living it up with a big pension and so I know that despite the media reports of big generous pensions, they are not all that they are made out to be.
As I said earlier new entrants to the service are being signed up to less generous pension benefits and so the situation should not get so bad that the only way to deal with it is by cutting those who are currently on a pension. By signing new employees up to less beneficial arrangements steps are being taken to deal with the situation.
Personally I would cut other benefits before going after pensioners.

irishh_bob

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

I'm not going to deny that there is a bias towards the retired Gardaí, how could I ?:)
However, my parents are not living it up with a big pension and so I know that despite the media reports of big generous pensions, they are not all that they are made out to be.
As I said earlier new entrants to the service are being signed up to less generous pension benefits and so the situation should not get so bad that the only way to deal with it is by cutting those who are currently on a pension. By signing new employees up to less beneficial arrangements steps are being taken to deal with the situation.
Personally I would cut other benefits before going after pensioners.

and that is why the goverment has such free reign to cut the likes of the blind and disabled while leaving pensioners ( including the wealthy ones ) untouched , its a particulary preculiar aspect of the irish charecther that certain social groups or professions are seen as sacred cows , i for one believe pensioners have a whole lot less expenses than younger people , imo , a young couple in thier thirties with no job security and a huge mortgage are a lot mroe vulnerable than any pensioner, a pensioners only essential expense is food , everything else is paid for

Penny Dreadful

irishh_bob wrote: »

and that is why the goverment has such free reign to cut the likes of the blind and disabled while leaving pensioners ( including the wealthy ones ) untouched , its a particulary preculiar aspect of the irish charecther that certain social groups or professions are seen as sacred cows , i for one believe pensioners have a whole lot less expenses than younger people , imo , a young couple in thier thirties with no job security and a huge mortgage are a lot mroe vulnerable than any pensioner, a pensioners only essential expense is food , everything else is paid for

Pensioners may by the time they are pensioners have fewer expenses than a young couple in their 30s but they were once that couple and paid their share then. As a result, now that they are pensioners, have have paid off their mortgage, their major outgoings are smaller but that doesn't mean that they have to be penalised.
Pensioners pay for heat and electricity, broadband (if they wish), food, petrol, road tax, insurance for their car, home, health, clothing, etc. Not only young people require those things.

irishh_bob

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Pensioners may by the time they are pensioners have fewer expenses than a young couple in their 30s but they were once that couple and paid their share then. As a result, now that they are pensioners, have have paid off their mortgage, their major outgoings are smaller but that doesn't mean that they have to be penalised.
Pensioners pay for heat and electricity, broadband (if they wish), food, petrol, road tax, insurance for their car, home, health, clothing, etc. Not only young people require those things.

im bored with this debate , baschically your arguement is that every other generation should have to endure penury in order for pensioners to continue to be kept in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to , as i said earlier , im not one of those people who mythologises over any particular social group or who subscribes to the notion that all pensioners are ineherently weak , poor or vulnerable , IMO , most pensioners are none of the above

Penny Dreadful

irishh_bob wrote: »

im bored with this debate , baschically your arguement is that every other generation should have to endure penury in order for pensioners to continue to be kept in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to , as i said earlier , im not one of those people who mythologises over any particular social group or who subscribes to the notion that all pensioners are ineherently weak , poor or vulnerable , IMO , most pensioners are none of the above

My point is that the lifestyle to which pensioners have become accustomed to is not all that fantastic despite what some people and media outlets would have the people believe.
Our generation (i.e. yours and mine) is not going to have to endure penury because of the pensioners. We will have to endure peunury (and not every will have to and some that do will endure it because of their own greed during the Tiger years) not because of the pensioners but because of a corrupt system that allowed the banks to behave as they did, a corrupt system that allowed various TDs and Senators legally claim for things that were not as they seemed, a habit of looking the other way as people who were on the dole actually work too, a habit of looking the other way at people who claimed to be single parents and got all the benefits attached actually live with the father of their children..................to say that the people of the country will suffer because of the pensions paid out to ordinary people who are not retired is nonsense.

SparkyTech

Most OAP's don't have lofty pension funds and many have worked hard over the whole of their working lives to rear children, pay a mortgage and provide for their family in hard times. My granddad worked 48+ hour weeks as a caretaker in a school to raise a family of 5 (and because of the mortgage they were always short a weeks wages in every month, but they managed to get by!). Why shouldn't OAP's enjoy the little bit of high life in the short time they have left on this earth?

€200 a week is hardly living like royalty. Milk, Bread, Butter, Tea and Porridge for a week easily costs the bones of €20 quid alone. Petrol another €20. Food shopping costs another €60 and while they may have an allowance for the tv/phone they still have to pay a bill at the end of the month. Not to mention sky/UPC/Broadband etc...

I agree that a small tax on pensions might be necessary in the broader scheme of the economic meltdown if we all have to bear the pain, but, just as the lowest income earners face 2% leveys, it doesn't make it right.

Boskowski

I find the OPs position extremely cynical to say the least. Don't you think that someone who has worked all their life and paid taxes actually deserves a few years with no work and modest financial comfort? I think they deserve it much more than a 20 year old with a strong sense of entitlement.

irishh_bob

Boskowski wrote: »

I find the OPs position extremely cynical to say the least. Don't you think that someone who has worked all their life and paid taxes actually deserves a few years with no work and modest financial comfort? I think they deserve it much more than a 20 year old with a strong sense of entitlement.

as has been pointed out already , even someone never worked a day or paid a schilling in tax , they are entitled to 218 per week plus all the other perks , no group has more of a sense of entitlement than the elderly in this country , years of pampering by politicans and doting by the general public has produced a diva like generation of pensioners , i refuse to accept that a pensioner with no expense bar food is more vulnerable than a young couple with kids with all the present concerns of job security and mortgage default