15% Of Your Salary To Be Compulsorily Confiscated

Solair

I think Germany learnt to be sensible the very hard way though. They didn't really have any options but to reform everything after WWII.

Their grandparents took populist, short term politics to the extreme and ended up electing complete lunatics who nearly destroyed half of Europe and killed millions.

It's easy to forget that Germany was basically completely dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up in the 60s and 60s.

Nothing was left untouched. Every aspect of the government, industry and society had to be reformed and reimagined.

They have a national fixation on avoiding creating instability or social turmoil as they know how incredibly dangerous it became when taken to extremes.

I don't think however that you can necessarily apply those kinds of reforms elsewhere as radically as they happened in Germany as other countries' system work and tend to evolve slowly,

That being said, they turned a complete post war apocalypse society around in about 25 years.

We should be looking at how they did it and applying that to countries that had economic collapses!

There's a lot to be said for five decades of sensible, boring, economic stability and sustainability.

Proper fiscal planning certainly helps to create those circumstances.

hyperborean

Its the Indo folks, cool your jets.....all these nonsense, gutter journalism type of the rabble rousing pieces are sales tools for fools.

NuckingFacker

I think it would be a great idea anyway. They could put it into some huge centrally administered fund, call it somthing like the err, "National Pension Reserve Fund", we could shorten it to the NPRF. This money could then be ringfenced and used soley to fund the pensions of our elderly in need. Splendid idea.

Sure, no Government would dare dip into this for anything else, there's no way the whole massive fund collected could get p1ssed up a wall repaying Private gambling debts of wealthy European Banking families. I'm positive any funds collected would be carefully managed and marshalled for the benefit of the Citizens who contributed. Not.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RoverZT wrote: »

Well said.

On your bike Mad_Lad

Something was said... Not good....

Seriously, though, it's a setup Ireland could learn from. Don;t go mad spending money you don;t have, invest it and make sure people do the same.

Solair

Solair wrote: »

I think Germany learnt to be sensible the very hard way though. They didn't really have any options but to reform everything after WWII.

Their grandparents took populist, short term politics to the extreme and ended up electing complete lunatics who nearly destroyed half of Europe and killed millions.

It's easy to forget that Germany was basically completely dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up in the 60s and 60s.

Nothing was left untouched. Every aspect of the government, industry and society had to be reformed and reimagined.

They have a national fixation on avoiding creating instability or social turmoil as they know how incredibly dangerous it became when taken to extremes.

I don't think however that you can necessarily apply those kinds of reforms elsewhere as radically as they happened in Germany as other countries' system work and tend to evolve slowly,

That being said, they turned a complete post war apocalypse society around in about 25 years.

We should be looking at how they did it and applying that to countries that had economic collapses!

There's a lot to be said for five decades of sensible, boring, economic stability and sustainability.

Proper fiscal planning certainly helps to create those circumstances.

Yes the War did learn them a very hard lesson, and they rebuilt the country and fair play to them.

But a lot of our problem is the "Let someone else sort it out or worry about it culture"

Just look at how many people get off the asses and vote in this country, the turn outs are always shamefully low, and yet these people have the cheek to bitch and moan about the way things are. I know lots of them with the attitude " shure what's the point ?"

Why shouldn't we look at the way other countries do things and apply them here, if it works then why not ?

twowheelsonly

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...

Troll obviously..

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

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...

Yes, everybody that is working is paying into others State Pensions through PRSI - Strangely enough that includes almost all Public Servants!!

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....

Most Public Sector workers already pay into their own compulsory pension. As I said on another thread, on this weeks docket (fortnightly) I paid €451 in various Pension costs for a pension that will pay me roughly €460pw when I retire - based on current rates but which could have changed this morning the way things are going!!

Personally I'd be against compulsory pensions purely based on the governments track record of handling anything other than their own pocket money.
The only way it could work would be for the the money to be ring-fenced into a state investment agency (much like a private pensions company) but with no bonuses for the Fat Cats, just a standard wage. Gambling on high returns with someone elses money to try to get yourself a bonus is a recipe for disaster that has happened many times before. No big bonus should negate the urge to go for big returns in favour of slow but steady growth.

Chop Chop

The best investments for pensions are the "unethical" ones. I lost a shed load of money because Eagle Star invested heavily in the property bubble in America and Europe. My pension fund manager approached me and asked if I had a moral issue with investing in "bombs and bullets"

I asked him "what companies are you talking about" he said the likes of BAE systems, Federal Premium Ammunition etc... Highly profitable with all the wars going on around the world.

You can make a tidy sum, so long as you lack empathy for human life. A fair few of my colleagues have invested in this stuff for their retirement.

awec

The retirement age needs raised. The system was not designed for people to live 20 years after retiring.

While it's true people should be paying toward their own pension, as life expectancy goes up the retirement age should go up with it. For it to stay the same is just economically impossible and will put a huge burden on the working population in future.

Solair

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes the War did learn them a very hard lesson, and they rebuilt the country and fair play to them.

But a lot of our problem is the "Let someone else sort it out or worry about it culture"

Just look at how many people get off the asses and vote in this country, the turn outs are always shamefully low, and yet these people have the cheek to bitch and moan about the way things are. I know lots of them with the attitude " shure what's the point ?"

Why shouldn't we look at the way other countries do things and apply them here, if it works then why not ?

The turnouts actually compare very well to most countries : 2011 - 70.1% in Ireland.

65% in the UK
70.78% in Germany last time.
55.4% in France
41.5% in the US
61.4% in Canada

Overall our turnouts apart from 2002 are really quite high. Until the late 80s they were one of the highest in the western world.

Voter apathy at local election level is a big issue though but that's also down to councillors roles being pointless so people don't engage with them.

I agree there's a lot of issues but I don't think you can accuse Irish people of lack of political engagement!

How they vote is another issue entirely - lots of over emphasis of local issues at the expense of national ones and clientelism created by the multi seat constituency model largely - TDs in any given area battling it out amongst themselves on local issues all the way through their term rather than focusing on national issues which is actually what their job should be.

coffee_cake

The retirement age is being raised, that's old news

Silentcorner

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Most Public Sector workers already pay into their own compulsory pension. As I said on another thread, on this weeks docket (fortnightly) I paid €451 in various Pension costs for a pension that will pay me roughly €460pw when I retire - based on current rates but which could have changed this morning the way things are going!!

Personally I'd be against compulsory pensions purely based on the governments track record of handling anything other than their own pocket money.
The only way it could work would be for the the money to be ring-fenced into a state investment agency (much like a private pensions company) but with no bonuses for the Fat Cats, just a standard wage. Gambling on high returns with someone elses money to try to get yourself a bonus is a recipe for disaster that has happened many times before. No big bonus should negate the urge to go for big returns in favour of slow but steady growth.

Calling me a troll is completely uncalled for.

If you can prove to me that all PS pensions are self financing (pensions that are paid today and into the future) then I stand corrected, until then...

I completely agree with your second point.

Kristopherus

awec wrote: »

The retirement age needs raised. The system was not designed for people to live 20 years after retiring.

While it's true people should be paying toward their own pension, as life expectancy goes up the retirement age should go up with it. For it to stay the same is just economically impossible and will put a huge burden on the working population in future.

It is being raised. It goes to 66 for the Contributory OAP next January. On 01/01/2021 it goes to 67 and on 01/01/2028 it goes to 68.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Frequently-Asked-Questions---State-Pension-Increase-in-pensi.aspx

This age increase is becoming an issue for people born in 1949 already. They must retire at 65. The only way they can fund their life for the year is to "sign on" for the year, according to DSFA. in 2028 these people will have to "sign on" for 3 years, as things currently stand.How daft is that?:(. Retirement age will also have to be extended.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kristopherus wrote: »

It is being raised. It goes to 66 for the Contributory OAP next January. On 01/01/2021 it goes to 67 and on 01/01/2028 it goes to 68.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Frequently-Asked-Questions---State-Pension-Increase-in-pensi.aspx

This age increase is becoming an issue for people born in 1949 already. They must retire at 65. The only way they can fund their life for the year is to "sign on" for the year, according to DSFA. in 2028 these people will have to "sign on" for 3 years, as things currently stand.How daft is that?:(. Retirement age will also have to be extended.

What, you mean I now have to work for 28 more years instead of 27? The bastards! To the streets!

Technoprisoner

isnt it funny how Ireland, England and America all came up with the same great idea within a few days of each other...they are setting us all up to take our money for the next big crash !!!

wolfpawnat

awec wrote: »

The retirement age needs raised. The system was not designed for people to live 20 years after retiring.

While it's true people should be paying toward their own pension, as life expectancy goes up the retirement age should go up with it. For it to stay the same is just economically impossible and will put a huge burden on the working population in future.

A lot of 65/66/67 year olds are able to continue their jobs, but others would not. A large animal vet or a surgeon, etc. Some begin to show signs of more age related illnesses too. It would be interesting to have a proper study done into it to see how much of the population is capable of working that long. I know a 55 year old in horrific health (my father) and a 70 year old who would run rings around most 30 year olds (my uncle).

I don't like this "we'll take it and mind it for you" attitude the Government have. They have squandered so much of the PRFS already, what's to say it won't be squandered again. They have no problem spending people's money for them.


Several of my friends are voicing their concerns that their parents are now retirement age and their pensions that they have been saving into for years are non-existent. Why would you bother paying a random tax for nothing in return, because that is all it is then. Those I know with normal savings accounts seem to be doing a bit better.

Also, why is the money that people paid tax on before being taxed again in Contributory Pensions? Double tax.....not worth it.

coffee_cake

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Several of my friends are voicing their concerns that their parents are now retirement age and their pensions that they have been saving into for years are non-existent. Why would you bother paying a random tax for nothing in return, because that is all it is then. Those I know with normal savings accounts seem to be doing a bit better.

It's not a tax. It doesn't go to the state. It's an order, if it goes through, to set up a private plan. You choose the provider, you choose the funds. And if you don't want a risky return, choose a cash fund and pay more.

Also, why is the money that people paid tax on before being taxed again in Contributory Pensions? Double tax.....not worth it.

Many pensioners do not actually have to pay tax, because their income is too low.

Tax relief on contributions
You may get tax relief on contributions to approved personal pension arrangements. This relief is more generous as you get older. Since 1 January 2011 you pay PRSI and the Universal Social Charge on your pension contributions.

Age Amount which qualifies for tax relief
Under 30 years 15% of net relevant earnings
30 to 39 years 20%
40 to 49 years 25%
50 to 54 years: 30%
55 to 59 years 35%
60 and over 40%

Technoprisoner

bluewolf wrote: »

It's not a tax. It doesn't go to the state. It's an order, if it goes through, to set up a private plan. You choose the provider, you choose the funds. And if you don't want a risky return, choose a cash fund and pay more.

they are deffinately up to something though....if you google forced pension, the first 3 news items are from Ireland England and America. its a bit odd that they all come up with this great idea at the same time....sounds to me like they are expecting the workforce to prop up the banks buying putting our money into pension funds

godwin

Tigger wrote: »

must resist godwin

Ohh HAI!

wolfpawnat

bluewolf wrote: »

It's not a tax. It doesn't go to the state. It's an order, if it goes through, to set up a private plan. You choose the provider, you choose the funds. And if you don't want a risky return, choose a cash fund and pay more.

Will it be going into the Pension Reserve Fund (please correct me if I am wrong) The government have had their sticky fingers in that a few times and have decimated it. So I would be very fearful of them getting more money. If it goes there and is taken out and not used for your pension, then essentially, it is just another tax.

twowheelsonly

Silentcorner wrote: »

Calling me a troll is completely uncalled for.

If you can prove to me that all PS pensions are self financing (pensions that are paid today and into the future) then I stand corrected, until then...

I completely agree with your second point.

Your first comment in the entire discussion is -

As ridiculous as it may sound.

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

I'm sorry, but as much as I tried to understand that from any reasonable angle I just can't!!
Given all that has gone on recently, and been discussed on here with some emotion, you had to have known that the comment was going to inflame some. (Ref the two immediate responses..)
It has nothing whatsoever to do with me having to prove that all PS pensions are self financing, it was the initial nature of the comment.

Silentcorner

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Your first comment in the entire discussion is -



I'm sorry, but as much as I tried to understand that from any reasonable angle I just can't!!
Given all that has gone on recently, and been discussed on here with some emotion, you had to have known that the comment was going to inflame some. (Ref the two immediate responses..)
It has nothing whatsoever to do with me having to prove that all PS pensions are self financing, it was the initial nature of the comment.

Fair enough, I do understand the nature of my argument (hence describing it as ridiculous) will annoy some, confuse others...still no justification for call me a troll...because it is an important issue when discussing pensions for all citizens...

The taxes paid by the people who do not have their own pension, are supplementing the shortfall in PS pensions, therefore, not by choice, are contributing to someone else's pension...and now the gov is suggesting a further pension levy on those same people...I merely suggested that the PS should contribute to that....and believe me I know how frustrating it is to see your taxes/income supplementing other people's pensions.

sock puppet

Technoprisoner wrote: »

they are deffinately up to something though....if you google forced pension, the first 3 news items are from Ireland England and America. its a bit odd that they all come up with this great idea at the same time....sounds to me like they are expecting the workforce to prop up the banks buying putting our money into pension funds

The UK began setting up their auto-enrolment pension scheme in 2008 and enrolment began last year.

Kintarō Hattori

smash wrote: »

Most people pay for it themselves throughout their lives:

So hang on for a sec. If you're already paying towards a state pension, why are they looking at potentially taking a percentage of your earnings to put into another pension scheme?


I realize most people should also have a private pension but just a little confused as to why the government are looking at the possibility above.

UCDVet

I know it sounds very cynical and all - but I really think that many of our financial/political leaders are less concerned about the long term viability of things and more concerned with keeping the status-quo for so long as they need.

"Gee - running out of money? Let's just get more money. I know - let's force people to invest, that'll give my buddies running the banks a breath of fresh air....they'll continue doing what they do, we'll have a nice run-up where things seem good as we pat ourselves on the back...we'll use the money we have now 'investing' in stuff, generate fake increases in value, celebrate our good fortune....and we will ignore the fact that there was no real value created and know full-well that in another 10-20 years it'll blow up.

But I'll be retired then, with many millions"

Phoebas

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

So hang on for a sec. If you're already paying towards a state pension, why are they looking at potentially taking a percentage of your earnings to put into another pension scheme?

Because the money you pay for the state pension goes to fund pensions for the current crop of pensioners.
The ratios of workers to pensioners in the future won't be enough to keep that pyramid scheme going.

One obvious partial solution would be start to gradually decrease the amount of the state pension - they basically know what the demographics are going to be, so they could start projecting the level of state pension into the future. That might spur individuals into taking care of their own pension arrangements; too many people are still under the false impression that they will be getting in 30 or 40 years the levels of pension that today's pensioners are getting now.

Tar.Aldarion

Is it common for companies to contribute to your pension? I've just started mine and they are matching it up to a certain percentage of my wage. A good reason over just using a savings account, also as you can choose risk there us some flexibility.

Boom__Boom

Just some quick facts I found while googling life expectancy in Ireland.

Chances are that life expectancy is only going to increase further.

This is going to be a massive issue down the line.

The key statistic from a health perspective is the number of people over the age of 65 which is projected to increase from over 500,000 now to over 1,300,000 in the next 30 years with the greatest proportional increases occurring in the 85+ age group

Life expectancy for Irish men is currently 76.8 years while it is 81.6 years for women. This compares to 64.5 and 67.1 years respectively 60 years ago.

The rise in life expectancy in Ireland during the past decade has been unmatched by any other country in Europe. Ireland has gone from a position of nearly 1 year below average EU life expectancy to almost 1 year above in the space of 10 years during which time average EU life expectancy has also been increasing

KyussBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

It's not a tax. It doesn't go to the state. It's an order, if it goes through, to set up a private plan. You choose the provider, you choose the funds. And if you don't want a risky return, choose a cash fund and pay more.

It's a de-facto tax, a forced-subsidization of private financial firms; if this were going anywhere other than finance, you can bet most Libertarians would be railing against it as an unjust tax/subsidy.

A_Sober_Paddy

Would anything stop you from investing in a cash fund in a bank not operating within Ireland?

clairefontaine

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's a de-facto tax, a forced-subsidization of private financial firms; if this were going anywhere other than finance, you can bet most Libertarians would be railing against it as an unjust tax/subsidy.

The US started something like this with Social Security under FDR. Yes the left hails him as a hero, forcing Americans to put a chunk of their salary away in the hands of the government to avail of later in old age. There has been much right wing criticism of FDR and of the social security program.

Only now people feel it is running out of money.

There was a thread here a few weeks ago about the government imposing fines on those who cannot prove they have a private bin contract for rubbish collection. It looks like the government is enforcing private subsidy of what used to be government services. And now you are seeing it again but with retirement funds?

I doubt that libertarians would support state confiscation of any one's money.