15% Of Your Salary To Be Compulsorily Confiscated

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

As ridiculous as it may sound.

The public sector should be asked to contribute toward the pensions of those in the private sector...

The 15% should therefore be taken off all employed individuals, plus those in receipt of state benefits...

Again... wtf??

sock puppet

noodler wrote: »

I probably phrased my initial post badly but obviously I am not under the impression the Irish Government would be managing pension investments for one million Irish workers!.

I don't see how it could take business away in Ireland if these 1m are not involved in a fund to begin with. I'd have thought it was win-win.

Their problem in the UK was that NEST costs less than other pensions, so people/employers who might otherwise have set up their own pension plan would just use NEST. Though at the moment there are restrictions to stop NEST competing with private sector providers.

lanyard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A report commissioned by the Department of Social Protection has recommended that workers currently without a pension be forced to make compulsory pension contributions of up to 15% of their salary.

The government have wasted the money we have already paid for our pensions. PRSI being deducted from everyones wages is supposed to pay for our pensions and healthcare needs. Employee PRSI is currently at 4% while the employer's contribution is c. 11%. What more do they want from us? Will they reduce PRSI to €Nil when they force us to take private pensions.

minidazzler

I'm not living long enough to collect any pension, so screw that.

K-9

lanyard wrote: »

The government have wasted the money we have already paid for our pensions. PRSI being deducted from everyones wages is supposed to pay for our pensions and healthcare needs. Employee PRSI is currently at 4% while the employer's contribution is c. 11%. What more do they want from us? Will they reduce PRSI to €Nil when they force us to take private pensions.

PRSI isn't just for pensions, it cover Jobseekers/Sickness/Maternity/Adoption and other Benefits, it's only 4%., it's ridiculously low by any standard.

Social Insurance in the North is about 11% which is why they get more benefits, though their payments are at a lower level.

People want all the state payments, but seem to think they are paying enough, yet our Income Tax and PRSI rate are very low by OECD standards, even with the increases of the last couple of years.

Hootanany

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A report commissioned by the Department of Social Protection has recommended that workers currently without a pension be forced to make compulsory pension contributions of up to 15% of their salary.

For the many workers currently struggling to meet mortgage and childcare costs and pay the property tax, new €180 communications tax, water charges, septic tax charges etc, will this be a charge too far?

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/pensions/million-of-us-face-paying-15pc-of-wages-into-pensions-29205237.html

But it's for your pension.

lanyard

Hootanany wrote: »

But it's for your pension.

It's government interference. The government dosn't know whats best for you. They focked up the state. Never trust anyone with your money apart from yourself.

Silentcorner

Hootanany wrote: »

But it's for your pension.

Who do you think pays for public sector pensions?

As I said, it is ridiculous to suggest that someone else pay for your pension but it is already happening...

What is being suggested is a "Pension Levy" on the Private Sector, who's taxes are already burdened by public sector pensions...it seems a little unfair for one sector to bear the burden of everyone's pension....

NinjaTruncs

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What part is misleading?

confiscated past participle, past tense of con·fis·cate (Verb)
Verb
Take or seize (someone's property) with authority.

com·pul·so·ry
/kəmˈpəlsərē/
Adjective
Required by law or a rule; obligatory.
Involving or exercising compulsion; coercive.

"To Be" should be "Could Be"

FoxT

In principle, Governments throughout Europe will not be able to continue paying existing pension benefits over the coming decades.
Because of these pressures, in principle again, it makes sense to insist that middle & higher income workers should compulsorily contribute to their own pension funds from the day they start working.

The devil, of course lies in the details. Private pension funds are not sufficiently regulated. Their charges are far too high, and are based on % of pension fund value, which is ridiculous.

There is a need to educate people on pensions (which is quite a complex subject), and there is also a need to force all but the lowest earners to contribute to their pensions.

There is a need to protect all invested pension monies, and also to protect consumers from the unregulated rapaciousness of the pension industry.

Complicated stuff. You wont get your answers, or indeed, the unbiased & informed advice that you need, in the Indo, or indeed, any daily newspaper.


-FoxT

animaal

My gloomy prediction for the future...

1. Introduce compulsory pension scheme for all workers.

2. Eliminate tax relief on pension contributions. If everybody is forced to pay in, there's no need to incentivise it!

3. Phase out the contributory pension. If people already have a private pension, why is it needed? The non-contributory pension will be used to make sure people don't "fall between the cracks".


Given the rubbish annuity rates (typically 3% p/a), it takes huuuge pot of cash to provide any decent annual income. You'd have to have €400,000 in a fund to provide the equivalent of the state pension. In effect, if you spend your life scrimping to put money into the pension, you'll be no better off than if you never worked a day in your life.


To be fair, I think people contributing to their own pensions is a good idea. But I think this or any other likely government will just use it to rip off the average worker.

Also, the government steals 0.6% of all pension pots for three years, then tells us we have to contribute more? They've a lot to learn about public sentiment!

Feathers

Tigger wrote: »

why on earth should i have to put 15% towards some idiots who will not manage my money as well as i do?

P_1 wrote: »

Not keen on this idea at all to be honest. Pension schemes have been known to collapse in the past. What guarantees are there in place to ensue that it won't happen again? Nil I'd hazard.

It just strikes me as yet more nanny stateism

So people are saying money for pensions should come from the existing tax base (i.e. by upping PRSI contributions), but at the same time are wary of schemes being mismanaged (exactly like the public pension pot has been) — surely if that's the case, you'd prefer a private scheme that you personally can control the level of risk taken with your portion of the pension fund.

opti0nal

ScumLord wrote: »

I never seen the benefit of pensions when they can disappear in an instant. Surely you'd be better off saving it into a standard savings account.

Unless the government decides to raid your bank account, or quite simply, your bank goes bust.

The attraction of pension funds is that there might be capital growth coupled with the contributions being relieved at potentially a higher rate than the eventual disbursements. The fund managers will siphon off some of your money though.

The problem is where to keep the money safe from private and govermental vultures.

3rd world countries have always reckoned that having a large family is the bedt pension policy....maybe they're right.

galwayrush

Some weeks my income is zero, so best of luck on them taking 15% of that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

Who do you think pays for public sector pensions?

As I said, it is ridiculous to suggest that someone else pay for your pension but it is already happening...

What is being suggested is a "Pension Levy" on the Private Sector, who's taxes are already burdened by public sector pensions...it seems a little unfair for one sector to bear the burden of everyone's pension....

Hang on - didn;t you say the public sector should contirbut to the private sectors' pensions...??

angry_dad wrote: »

to think , ive been rideculed in the past for suggesting that those on the state pension today have it really good , 219 per week + perks even they never paid a cent in tax and 230 + perks if a pretty modest level of prsi was paid for a relativley short period of time

future generations wont get anywhere near the same unconditional benefits once they arrive at retirement

In fairness, it does need to change wit hthe times a bit. People are living longer and pensions are going to be cst more.

I'm more in favour of rasiing the retirement age myself. The average 65 year old is healthier tnow than they were 20 years ago.

lanyard wrote: »

It's government interference. The government dosn't know whats best for you. They focked up the state. Never trust anyone with your money apart from yourself.

So what are you suggesting - anarchy?

FoxT

suppose you start working when you are 20, and you work until you are 65.

45 years working.

if your average salary in that time is y euro, then you will have earned 45y euro in your working lifetime.

Aged 65, let us say that you can expect to live for 15 years more.

And lets assume you are happy to spend the remaining 15 years of your life with a pension of half your AVERAGE salary.

with annuity rates at 3%, that will cost you 33y/2. that is, for a pension of half your AVERAGE salary (not your final salary) , you will need to have accumulated 16.5 times your average salary in order to purchase the annuity you will need.

now, you earned 45 average salaries, but you need to have 16.5 available at 65, so you should save 40% of your salary from day 1 to do this.

Pension funds point to the fact that you dont need to do that because of growth compounding - but anybody who has been putting money into a pension fund for the last 15 years will tell you that that statement is a crock of shit.

the above scenario, is , to be fair, pessimistic. I put it up here just to give some rough approximation of the immense costs of procuring a pension - and, by corollary, the immense costs to the taxpayer of the defined benefit system that is in place for public servants, which is in urgent need of reform.

-FoxT

kowloon

It's highly unlikely I'll live to retirement age, I don't see why I should be forced to put away funds just so they can vanish when I die. If I was allowed cash in my current retirement bond I would.

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hang on - didn;t you say the public sector should contirbut to the private sectors' pensions...??



In fairness, it does need to change wit hthe times a bit. People are living longer and pensions are going to be cst more.

I'm more in favour of rasiing the retirement age myself. The average 65 year old is healthier tnow than they were 20 years ago.



So what are you suggesting - anarchy?

Yes, I did, I also said it is ridiculous, but it is only fair is it not...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

Yes, I did, I also said it is ridiculous, but it is only fair is it not...

I may be missing something here, but did you just discribe something as both ridiculous and fair??

wingsof daun

Don't accept this mandatory contribution to your pension. They will donate all this pension fund to the banks down the line, or the bankers will just take it.

KyussBishop

This current crisis has shown, in many places in the world, pension funds both public and private have been used for financial gambling and personal gain for hedge fund managers and such, without taking care to base investments underpinning the pensions, on sustainable economic activity.

Look at the number of people whose pensions have been massively wiped in value, who have contributed money for years and will see fúck all in return; nobody forced to contribute into a pension can have complete certainty that they will get their money back, especially as we are likely to experience further economic crisis in the near future, which may see pension funds raided once again.

Primarily the finance sector would favour a tax like this (where they would oppose almost any other kind of tax), because of the income they could siphon off through these funds; our economy, with its current lagging demand, does not need a 15% reduction in dispensable income, further damaging demand and economic performance.

KuriousOranj

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes FF ruined this country and people got too used to paying too low taxes.

Those in Germany see 50% of their income gone through health charges and taxes.

In Germany you have to pay water chargers, but you have to pay for waste water also, simply incoming water x 2 is deducted.

Germany has a far better infrastructure because they pay for it and their health system is excellent and puts us to absolute shame.

I love Germany, it's such a sensible place with sensible people that don't bitch and moan all the time. There is the absolute absence of constant negativity that has always plagued Irish people and one of the reasons we will not get out of recession for several years.

My advice to you and your wife is don't move back or you'll go crazy !!!

Move to/stay in Germany then you prick!

Perhaps you can lick Merkel's arsehole clean while your at it.

Gob****e.

Mod edit

Banned

RoverZT

KuriousOranj wrote: »

Move to/stay in Germany then you prick!

Perhaps you can lick Merkel's arsehole clean while your at it.

Gob****e.

Well said.

On your bike Mad_Lad

zbluebirdz

FoxT wrote: »

suppose you start working when you are 20, and you work until you are 65.

45 years working.

if your average salary in that time is y euro, then you will have earned 45y euro in your working lifetime.

Aged 65, let us say that you can expect to live for 15 years more.

And lets assume you are happy to spend the remaining 15 years of your life with a pension of half your AVERAGE salary.

with annuity rates at 3%, that will cost you 33y/2. that is, for a pension of half your AVERAGE salary (not your final salary) , you will need to have accumulated 16.5 times your average salary in order to purchase the annuity you will need.

now, you earned 45 average salaries, but you need to have 16.5 available at 65, so you should save 40% of your salary from day 1 to do this.

...

What is the 33 in the "33y/2"?

Menas

The basic state pension today is just enough to live on. In 30 years time the number of pensioners will be 30% of the population. Life expectancy will be about 85. So that is an average of 18 years of your life as a pensioner.

Paying all those a state pension at todays relative rates is not going to happen.

So unless you have a private pension or other means you will be living in abject poverty.
This is why the government is trying to do this.
I don't think they have it right though. The contribution should only be made by those who earn over a certain salary.
Pension contributions should be made before any USC or income tax is paid. People should be able to manage their own persons like the 401k in the US.

Solair

Only other way is if we can create a sustainable growing economy and have a baby boom and serious levels of immigration.

We need more working people than retired people to make the pensions system work!

Greying, xenophobic electorates in certain continental countries are just attacking the very people who will be supporting them in their old age.

Ireland really needs a boom based on technology and the export sector and/or find some oil/gas on a serious scale.

KuriousOranj

KuriousOranj wrote: »

Move to/stay in Germany then you prick!

Perhaps you can lick Merkel's arsehole clean while your at it.

Gob****e.

This had better not go unnoticed by the mods.

Micky Dolenz

KuriousOranj wrote: »

Move to/stay in Germany then you prick!

Perhaps you can lick Merkel's arsehole clean while your at it.

Gob****e.

Mod

Banned

Tigger

FoxT wrote: »

suppose you start working when you are 20, and you work until you are 65.

45 years working.

if your average salary in that time is y euro, then you will have earned 45y euro in your working lifetime.

Aged 65, let us say that you can expect to live for 15 years more.

And lets assume you are happy to spend the remaining 15 years of your life with a pension of half your AVERAGE salary.

with annuity rates at 3%, that will cost you 33y/2. that is, for a pension of half your AVERAGE salary (not your final salary) , you will need to have accumulated 16.5 times your average salary in order to purchase the annuity you will need.

now, you earned 45 average salaries, but you need to have 16.5 available at 65, so you should save 40% of your salary from day 1 to do this.

Pension funds point to the fact that you dont need to do that because of growth compounding - but anybody who has been putting money into a pension fund for the last 15 years will tell you that that statement is a crock of shit.

the above scenario, is , to be fair, pessimistic. I put it up here just to give some rough approximation of the immense costs of procuring a pension - and, by corollary, the immense costs to the taxpayer of the defined benefit system that is in place for public servants, which is in urgent need of reform.

-FoxT

If you save 40% for 45 years you get 18 years full pay or 36 years half pay and that ignores the 60 years of interest etc.
The real figure is about 10-15 % depending on the curve of your wage increase

Micky Dolenz

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Mod

Banned

Thanks !