Compulsory Pension Contributions?

PhilMcGee

woodoo wrote: »

PRSI isn't enough

Then give it back to those who pay it before bringing in this new pension grab.

Pension reserve fund - raided.
Private pensions - raided.

And now they want to force people to put money where they can raid it at will.

antoobrien

PhilMcGee wrote: »

Then give it back to those who pay it before bringing in this new pension grab.

Pension reserve fund - raided.

Not raided, invested.

PhilMcGee wrote: »

Private pensions - raided.

Unfortunately no different from all the other taxes - mostly used to pay for SW & PS pay.

Darwin

antoobrien wrote: »

Not raided, invested.

I would not consider giving money to senior bondholders in Anglo Irish, Irish Nationwide etc an "investment", the word plunder comes to mind.

PhilMcGee

antoobrien wrote: »

Not raided, invested.



Unfortunately no different from all the other taxes - mostly used to pay for SW & PS pay.

Robbed.
You dont get me to put money where I cant touch it, and then rob it yourself.
Never again.

thebman

hmmm wrote: »

Then you don't understand equity funds or shares in general. There is no guarantee that you will make a profit, so you need to invest in a mix of risk assets that suit your risk profile, diversify, and leave your money invested for the long term.

If you want a "guaranteed" return, put your pension into a cash fund. You'll be wiped out by inflation however. The rest of us will get on with making money, but please don't come crying to us trying to get your hands on our pensions when you end up with none.

No I understand, no need to pretend it's complicated but no guarantee means go f*** yourself if you think I'm allowing mandatory pension contributions which is what this thread is about.

No way you make it mandatory to gamble...

If they want to do that, I want the company gambling putting it's neck on the line too.

Also I expect guaranteed returns if it is mandatory.

In other words, no way in hell would I support mandatory pension contributions. Whole idea is a con IMO.

antoobrien

Darwin wrote: »

I would not consider giving money to senior bondholders in Anglo Irish, Irish Nationwide etc an "investment", the word plunder comes to mind.

It was given to neither, NPRF money went to AIB & BOI. The original investment in BOI has already been returned to the exchequer.

antoobrien

PhilMcGee wrote: »

Robbed.
You dont get me to put money where I cant touch it, and then rob it yourself.
Never again.

You can't touch your pay packet either before it's released to you....

ednwireland

thebman wrote: »

No I understand, no need to pretend it's complicated but no guarantee means go f*** yourself if you think I'm allowing mandatory pension contributions which is what this thread is about.

No way you make it mandatory to gamble...

If they want to do that, I want the company gambling putting it's neck on the line too.

Also I expect guaranteed returns if it is mandatory.

In other words, no way in hell would I support mandatory pension contributions. Whole idea is a con IMO.

totally agree all you have to do is look what robert maxwell did to pension funds in the uk (ok the rules were tightened up but i doubt they are that tight in fact a case was brought in 2007 where people again lost pension funds - because nobody cares about them they just want your money)
also bet the waterford crystal workers thought they had a pension fund until the company folded, where they've had to go to the european court of human rights which has now ruled the state has an obligation to protect pensions of workers where companies become insolvent.

obviously nobody before this case thought that this was important which makes politicians legislating for compulsary pension funds the last people on earth (ok second last after anyone in the financial industry) you want deciding this.

tbh honest i see the same as the minimum drink pricing (which is basically the vintners lobby seeing an opportunity to raise off-sale prices) as the fininacial industry lobby seeing a way of making a few bucks and providing very little in return

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0425/385516-waterford-crystal/

original roberts ruling (which was only a partial victory as it didnt decide how much was protected)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005J0278:EN:HTML

tbh the pensions industry is a total scam imo

Darwin

antoobrien wrote: »

It was given to neither, NPRF money went to AIB & BOI. The original investment in BOI has already been returned to the exchequer.

The banks received €20.7bn from the NPRF of which the government received back total payments of €3.1bn (July 2012). How much of this was repaid into the NPRF?. The government shareholding value of AIB and BOI was estimated at €9.4bn (by NPRF) but subject to an independent review. So still a long long way off the original amount that this fund held.

antoobrien

Darwin wrote: »

The banks received €20.7bn from the NPRF of which the government received back total payments of €3.1bn (July 2012). How much of this was repaid into the NPRF?.

I never said that it has been repaid to the NPRF, but the initial investment for BOI has been paid back to the government.

Darwin wrote: »

The government shareholding value of AIB and BOI was estimated at €9.4bn (by NPRF) but subject to an independent review. So still a long long way off the original amount that this fund held.

So? That valuation only matters if the government are forced to sell their stake, just how likely is that?

The BOI shares were trading at 6.8c back in September 2011, now over 17c (I see a bargain). If the NPRF still have the shares in 18 months and the value doubles again, how does it affect the perception of the shareholding?

It will be interesting to see how dealing with the mortgage arrears mess will change the valuations over the next 18 months, now that the banks can actually threaten people with taking houses back if arrears occur.

Darwin

antoobrien wrote: »

I never said that it has been repaid to the NPRF, but the initial investment for BOI has been paid back to the government.

I never said you did, however your assertion that the original investment in BOI has already been returned to the exchequer implies this is somehow good for the NPRF. If the NPRF invests money and does not get its investment back, what is the point in having the fund in the first place?

antoobrien wrote: »

So? That valuation only matters if the government are forced to sell their stake, just how likely is that?

The BOI shares were trading at 6.8c back in September 2011, now over 17c (I see a bargain). If the NPRF still have the shares in 18 months and the value doubles again, how does it affect the perception of the shareholding?

It will be interesting to see how dealing with the mortgage arrears mess will change the valuations over the next 18 months, now that the banks can actually threaten people with taking houses back if arrears occur.

Before the crash, the NPRF was originally prohibited from controlling any company or hold such percentage of the voting rights in any company that would require it to seek control of that company. Now it owns 99.8% of AIB. It has practically no diversity in its portfolio - all the money has been handed over to the banks. Between the buy to let schemes and residental mortgages, the banks are looking at losses of €6bn or more (not counting future SME losses given that €25bn of those loans are now impaired) and it is highly likely AIB is going to need further recapitalisation. The state could have had €70bn by 2025 to pay for future pension liabilities if the money was not used to recapitalise the banks. To argue that the government has astutely invested the NPRF funds in the interest of its beneficiaries is frankly ridiculous.

PhilMcGee

antoobrien wrote: »

You can't touch your pay packet either before it's released to you....

I dont pay my money into my pay packet.
And its not locked away for 40 years.
What branch of the government are you actually in anyway?

Black Swan

PhilMcGee wrote: »

What branch of the government are you actually in anyway?

MOD REMINDER:
Please focus on thread topic, not each other. Such personal questions are inappropriate per charter.

antoobrien

PhilMcGee wrote: »

I dont pay my money into my pay packet.
And its not locked away for 40 years.

So you disagree that the PAYE workers have their taxes taken from their paypacket before they get it? It's the same thing here.

PhilMcGee wrote: »

What branch of the government are you actually in anyway?

The part of the economy that pays all the taxes, better known as the private sector.

The Muppet

antoobrien wrote: »

The part of the economy that pays all the taxes, better known as the private sector.

That's news to me, both public and private sector workers pay direct and indirect taxes in this economy.

PhilMcGee

antoobrien wrote: »

So you disagree that the PAYE workers have their taxes taken from their paypacket before they get it? It's the same thing here.



The part of the economy that pays all the taxes, better known as the private sector.

You really arent making any sense at all in your posts.
What I was saying was that I pay PRSI which includes a portion which goes towards a contributory state pension. You seem to be all over the place.

antoobrien

The Muppet wrote: »

That's news to me, both public and private sector workers pay direct and indirect taxes in this economy.

Those indirect taxes spent by PS workers are generated from private taxes, meaning that the PS is a cost to the economy to the tune of €18bn in wages and pensions.

antoobrien

PhilMcGee wrote: »

What I was saying was that I pay PRSI which includes a portion which goes towards a contributory state pension. You seem to be all over the place.

!=

I dont pay my money into my pay packet.

PhilMcGee

antoobrien wrote: »

!=

Stop taking quotes out of context. It does you no favours.
That was an answer to a stupid question you asked.
My point still stands.

PhilMcGee

antoobrien wrote: »

Those indirect taxes spent by PS workers are generated from private taxes, meaning that the PS is a cost to the economy to the tune of €18bn in wages and pensions.

Thats a very blinkered point of view there to be fair.

kippy

antoobrien wrote: »

Those indirect taxes spent by PS workers are generated from private taxes, meaning that the PS is a cost to the economy to the tune of €18bn in wages and pensions.

What do people expect?
Services for free?

The Muppet

antoobrien wrote: »

Those indirect taxes spent by PS workers are generated from private taxes, meaning that the PS is a cost to the economy to the tune of €18bn in wages and pensions.

No they are not , Many Public Service workers pay direct taxes too, not all state income is generated from private sector taxes.

Education , Health, and Policing society etc is an expensive business, perhaps its time to charge directly for all these services. ie everyone pays directly for the services they and their dependants use. See how that would go down with those complaining about paying our teachers, Health Staff and Gardai etc under the current system.

antoobrien

The Muppet wrote: »

No they are not , Many Public Service workers pay direct taxes too, not all state income is generated from private sector taxes.

Every penny that has to go into the PS comes from private taxation, unless you think that the taxes generated by the approx €18bn cost of PS wages & pensions really does somehow manage to spin out multiples of it's worth in taxation.

kippy

antoobrien wrote: »

Every penny that has to go into the PS comes from private taxation, unless you think that the taxes generated by the approx €18bn cost of PS wages & pensions really does somehow manage to spin out multiples of it's worth in taxation.

Every penny that goes into the PS comes from TAXATION. Not just taxes that private sector pay. That much should be obvious even to the most blinkered of people.

And again, I'd ask, name a country that gets health, education, maintenance etc for "nothing".

antoobrien

kippy wrote: »

Every penny that goes into the PS comes from TAXATION. Not just taxes that private sector pay. That much should be obvious even to the most blinkered of people.

Do people actually believe we live in a communist country or something, where everything is due to government spending?:rolleyes:

kippy wrote: »

And again, I'd ask, name a country that gets health, education, maintenance etc for "nothing".

The simple fact of the matter is that without the private sector there is no money to pay for those public services among others, "that much should be obvious even to the most blinkered of people."

Now can we get back to the pensions please.

kippy

antoobrien wrote: »

Do people actually believe we live in a communist country or something, where everything is due to government spending?:rolleyes:



The simple fact of the matter is that without the private sector there is no money to pay for those public services among others, "that much should be obvious even to the most blinkered of people."

Now can we get back to the pensions please.

No,
You said that ALL PUBLIC sector wages are paid by PRIVATE sector taxpayers.
That is PLAINLY not correct.
Whats with the rolleyes?

Of course there HAS to be a private secotor, no one is arguing with that, but for a private sector to exist the relevant state funded services must also exist. One does not exist without the other, or one does not exist within a vacumn.

The Muppet

antoobrien wrote: »

Every penny that has to go into the PS comes from private taxation, unless you think that the taxes generated by the approx €18bn cost of PS wages & pensions really does somehow manage to spin out multiples of it's worth in taxation.

That's so obviously wrong. Have you forgotten that we borrow a few quid too?

ardmacha

Every penny that has to go into the PS comes from private taxation,

Typical overstated nonsense. Many public services have fees or charges and many sections are more or less self financing from these. Places like hospitals or universities have a significant proportion of their income that does not come from taxation. The problem with the present debate, is that even if a service is provided and is covered by non taxation sources this is entirely ignored in talking about the PS pay bill.

antoobrien

kippy wrote: »

No,
You said that ALL PUBLIC sector wages are paid by PRIVATE sector taxpayers.
That is PLAINLY not correct.
Whats with the rolleyes?

Tell me when did taxes generated from PS activities exceed the cost of the PS?

Oh wait it hasn't.

I've seen arguments that state that the PS tax goes to helping pay for services, training etc - this reducing the "real" cost of the PS bill, but funding itself - that's a new one.

Cody Pomeray

antoobrien wrote: »

Tell me when did taxes generated from PS activities exceed the cost of the PS?

Oh wait it hasn't.

I've seen arguments that state that the PS tax goes to helping pay for services, training etc - this reducing the "real" cost of the PS bill, but funding itself - that's a new one.

When a public sector worker is paid his wages every month, it is his or her decision entirely how he allocates that cash.

If he chooses to use the money for the purposes of investments in Swiss bonds or Kenyan flowers or Costa Rican bananas, then he is free to do so.

If he chooses, on the other hand, to spend the money on goods and services in Ireland, then he will pay taxes, charges and duties on these various goods and services, which constitute new tax contributions.

Once you extend a cash transfer, you lose control of it. It is no longer yours. It may regenerate itself, but it may not, depending on what the beneficiery decides to do.

Therefore it is quite correct to say that public sector workers who engage with the domestic economy in the provision of goods and services do partially fund the public sector.