Do you have a pension?

Geuze

Greentopia wrote: »

So it's ok that 20% of our population of older people are suffering hardships like food and fuel poverty and homelessness? "I'm alright Jack" eh? :roll eyes:

You keep repeating this.

It is incorrect.

Please see CSO data here:

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditions2013/#.Vc0jjvlViko

osarusan

Geuze wrote: »

219.


The Contributory SP is 230.30 pw.

The difference could be as little as 11 euro?

How many years contribution would it take to be eligible for the contributory state pension?

Geuze

Greentopia wrote: »

So it's ok that 20% of our population of older people are suffering hardships like food and fuel poverty and homelessness? "I'm alright Jack" eh? :roll eyes:

Earlier I said that you were incorrect on the 20% stat.............but I've been thinking.

Here are the 2013 SILC stats for over 65s, TABLE 2

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditions2013/#.Vc4XAPlViko

AROP = 9.2%

Deprived = 16.1%

Consistent poverty [AROP and deprived] = 1.9%

So the percentage of over 65s suffering AROP or deprivation is

9.2 + 16.1 - 1.9 = 23.4% of the over 65 population

So, in fact, 23.4% of over 65s suffer AROP or deprivation.

Geuze

osarusan wrote: »

The difference could be as little as 11 euro?

Yes.

The max CSP is 230.30 pw, with +10 pw when you hit 80.

The non-con pension is 219 pw, also with 10 extra with you reach 80.

Geuze

osarusan wrote: »

How many years contribution would it take to be eligible for the contributory state pension?

To qualify for a State Pension (Contributory) you must be aged 66 or over and have enough Class A, E, F,G, H, N or S social insurance contributions.

You need to:

Have paid social insurance contributions before a certain age
Have a certain number of social insurance contributions paid and
Have a certain average number over the years since you first started to pay
1. Paid insurance before a certain age

You must have started to pay social insurance before the age of 56. (The age limit is higher for people born before 1922.)

Entry into insurance

Your entry into insurance means the date on which you first started to pay social insurance.

The rules that determine when you entered into insurance are quite complex for those with mixed insurance, that is, full social insurance for some of the time and modified at other times.

Normally the date of starting insurable employment is taken as the date of the first paid employment contribution.

However if you have a mixture of full- and modified-rate contributions and paid your first full-rate employment contribution before 6 April 1991 and before you reached 56 years of age, your entry into insurance can be the date on which you first started to pay the full rate of insurance if that would be to your advantage.

If you started to pay full insurance after 6 April 1991, your entry into insurance is the time you first paid any social insurance.

There are also special entry into insurance rules for self-employed people. If you started to pay self-employed contributions on 6 April 1988 and had previously paid employee insurance at any time, then the date of entry into insurance can be either 6 April 1988 or the date on which you actually first paid insurance, whichever is to your advantage.

2. Number of paid contributions

If you reach pension age on or after April 6 2012, you need to have 520 full-rate contributions (10 years contributions). In this case, only 260 of the 520 contributions may be voluntary contributions.

However, if you were a voluntary contributor on or before April 6 1997 and you have a yearly average of 20 contributions, you may meet the requirement if you have a total of 520 full-rate contributions (of which only 156 need to be compulsory paid contributions).

If you reached pension age on or after 6 April 2002, you needed to have 260 full-rate contributions (effectively 5 years contributions but they do not need to be consecutive).

If you reached pension age before 6 April 2002, you needed 156 qualifying full-rate contributions (a total of 3 years but they did not have to be consecutive).

Note that social insurance contributions fall into the four groups below.

Full-rate social insurance contributions are PRSI contributions at Classes A, E, F, G, H, N and S or at the 'ordinary' rate before 6 April 1979.
Modified-rate social insurance contributions are PRSI contributions at Classes B, C and D (paid by civil and public servants).
Voluntary contributions are made by people under age 66 who are no longer covered by compulsory PRSI provided they satisfy certain conditions.
Credited contributions ('credits') are similar to the social insurance contributions you pay while employed and are usually awarded at the same rate as your last paid social insurance contribution. You may get credits when you are claiming a social welfare payment. Credits are not allowed after self-employed contributions (Class S).
3. Average number of contributions per year

You must meet the average condition. This is probably the most complex aspect of qualifying for a State Pension (Contributory).

Normal average rule

The normal average rule states that you must have a yearly average of at least 10 appropriate contributions paid or credited from the year you first entered insurance or from 1953, whichever is later to the end of the tax year before you reach pension age (66). An average of 10 entitles you to a minimum pension; you need an average of 48 to get the maximum pension.

Alternative average rule

This alternative average only applies to people who reach pension age on or after 6 April 1992.

It requires that you have an average of 48 Class A, E, F, G, H, N or S contributions (paid or credited) for each contribution year from the 1979/80 tax year to the end of the tax year before you reach pension age (66). This average would entitle you to the maximum pension. There is no provision for a reduced pension when this alternative average is used.

So, if you reach the age of 66 on or after April 6 1992, your average will be looked at in two ways - the usual average will be assessed and the alternative average will be assessed. Most employed or formerly employed people will be able to meet the alternative average. The alternative average will probably be looked at first because it is easier to assess. If you do not have an average of 48 contributions from 1979 then the normal method of assessing the average will be looked at and you may get a reduced pension (if you do not meet the alternative average, it is virtually impossible for you to have an average of 48 using the normal average rule).

Working in the home and State pensions

The Homemakers' Scheme makes it easier for people who take some time off work to care for family members to qualify for pensions. It is for people who have been carers since or after 1994. It does not affect people who were carers before April 1994 and it is not of much use to those who give up work permanently. It is of greatest importance for those who work outside the home for a number of years, then spend a number of years as carers and then return to the workforce. It applies equally to women and men.

From 5 April 1994, any contribution year spent as a homemaker may be disregarded in the calculation of the yearly average up to a maximum of 20 years. So, the fact that you do not have any contributions in those years will not affect your entitlement to a pension.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Geuze wrote: »

Earlier I said that you were incorrect on the 20% stat.............but I've been thinking.

Here are the 2013 SILC stats for over 65s, TABLE 2

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditions2013/#.Vc4XAPlViko

AROP = 9.2%

Deprived = 16.1%

Consistent poverty [AROP and deprived] = 1.9%

So the percentage of over 65s suffering AROP or deprivation is

9.2 + 16.1 - 1.9 = 23.4% of the over 65 population

So, in fact, 23.4% of over 65s suffer AROP or deprivation.

You can't just add those percentages together. In that case over 54% of the entire state population are AROP or worse so the elderly are bucking the trend.

Geuze

Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: »

You can't just add those percentages together. In that case over 54% of the entire state population are AROP or worse so the elderly are bucking the trend.

For entire pop:

AROP = 15.2%

Deprived = 30.5%

Overlap of AROP and deprived = consistent poverty = 8.2%

Let's return to JC or LC maths, and our Venn diagrams and sets.

The number of people experiencing AROP or deprivation is:

(A) + (B) - (A U

15.2 + 30.5 - 8.2 = 45.7 - 8.2 = 37.5%

So 37.5% of the pop are experiencing either AROP or deprivation.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

So, the older generation like myself are still fairing much better than the general population: which was the premise that started this piece.

Ronnie Worried Workaholic

Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: »

So, the older generation like myself are still fairing much better than the general population: which was the premise that started this piece.

Yeah I think that's what geuze was agreeing with

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It read to me that he was justifying Greentopia's constant bemoaning that 20% of the elderly were in poverty. It may be so but the use of the stat in the context it was used is moot, as it is well below the figures for the population as a whole. It's just using the statistics that suit an argument. Neither party pointed out that the general population suffered more risk of poverty than the elderly.

Geuze

Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: »

It read to me that he was justifying Greentopia's constant bemoaning that 20% of the elderly were in poverty. It may be so but the use of the stat in the context it was used is moot, as it is well below the figures for the population as a whole. It's just using the statistics that suit an argument. Neither party pointed out that the general population suffered more risk of poverty than the elderly.

Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer.

I initially thought Greentopia was wrong to constantly quote the 20% figure.

But, 20% of over 65s do suffer either at-risk-of-poverty or deprivations.

Now, the Govts preferred measure is consistent poverty, which means AROP and deprived.

Consistent poverty is very low among over 65.


What maybe wasn't mentioned is that the poverty measures are higher for the 18-64 age group.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer.

I initially thought Greentopia was wrong to constantly quote the 20% figure.

But, 20% of over 65s do suffer either at-risk-of-poverty or deprivations.

Now, the Govts preferred measure is consistent poverty, which means AROP and deprived.

Consistent poverty is very low among over 65.


What maybe wasn't mentioned is that the poverty measures are higher for the 18-64 age group.

Thank you. That was the important point when the 20% was being used as an argument that we elderly are suffering disproportionately. A good pension plan = security in old age. It's wonderful!

kazamo

A good pension plan is a DB scheme as the shortfall is someone else's problem.

Just signed up to my pension after reading this thread. Only 2% at the moment (employer matches this). Not much but at least it's something! I am in my mid twenties so seems a bit daunting...but might as well contribute a bit.

animaal

Lia_lia wrote: »

Just signed up to my pension after reading this thread. Only 2% at the moment (employer matches this). Not much but at least it's something! I am in my mid twenties so seems a bit daunting...but might as well contribute a bit.

Well done, that's a really good move. That 2% you're contributing will only cost you about 1% if you're on the higher tax band. So between the employer contribution and tax relief, you're contributing 1% of your income for a 4% pension contribution.

In the future, if/when you can afford to increase your contribution, it would be good to do so - particularly if your employer will match it. But the first step is the most difficult, and you've taken it.

Lollipops23

I just set mine up- literally in the last few days. I'm 28 in a few days and thought I should start being more responsible. I'm contributing the minimum for now, when I get a raise I'll up the amount.

Thargor

Do people bother with pensions when their employer doesn't match them?

BoJack Horseman

Thargor wrote: »

Do people bother with pensions when their employer doesn't match them?

A PRSA would be useful in that situation

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

kazamo wrote: »

A good pension plan is a DB scheme as the shortfall is someone else's problem.

A DB pension is not a good pension, it's a bloody marvelous pension.

animaal

Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: »

A DB pension is not a good pension, it's a bloody marvelous pension.

That definitely used to be the case, but it's not so clear-cut now.

Imagine that the investments behind your pension scheme lose 30% of their value.

In the case of a PRSA, your pot is reduced by 30%, and your entitlements lose 30% too.

In the case of a DB scheme, the assets of the scheme are reduced by 30%. However, members who are already retired (funded from the scheme) are entitled to continue without any reduction in income. Retirees experience no loss. The members still paying in share the shortfall, which is likely to be more than 30%. Just ask the Waterford Crystal workers!

Which is better depends on whether you'll be a member of the scheme for the rest of your career, the likelihood of the scheme meeting its promises, the quality of the investments behind the scheme, the chances that the employer will top it up when needed.

kazamo

animaal wrote: »

That definitely used to be the case, but it's not so clear-cut now.

Imagine that the investments behind your pension scheme lose 30% of their value.

In the case of a PRSA, your pot is reduced by 30%, and your entitlements lose 30% too.

In the case of a DB scheme, the assets of the scheme are reduced by 30%. However, members who are already retired (funded from the scheme) are entitled to continue without any reduction in income. Retirees experience no loss. The members still paying in share the shortfall, which is likely to be more than 30%. Just ask the Waterford Crystal workers!

Which is better depends on whether you'll be a member of the scheme for the rest of your career, the likelihood of the scheme meeting its promises, the quality of the investments behind the scheme, the chances that the employer will top it up when needed.

Comparing the PRSA and the DB is creating a somewhat false situation.

PRSA, your pot is reduced by 30%, and your entitlements lose 30% too.
In the case of DB scheme, pot is reduced by 30% but given at least matching contributions, the loss is based on what was contributed by employer anyway which is not the case for PRSA holders.

And then the PRSA holders get a further wallop when the pension levy is deducted to subsidise the failed DB schemes such as Waterford Crystal. And
they are barred from availing of the benefits on this new provision also.

It will be a rare ocurrance whereby a DB pension contributor will turn around and say "I wish I had a PRSA" and to hell with the promises in the DB scheme.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

All I can say is that, while the pensions levy had a small impact, my DB is firm and members still working are secure also.

Greentopia

Greentopia wrote: »

Oh my god. Of course your income is relevant! if your outgoings rose you would be able to cover them if your actual income was more than 200. Not so for someone on a fixed income of 200 like OAP's.

And are you actually trying to tell me you're paying full market rent for a single dwelling place in Dublin, plus food, heating, phone and all other expenses and bills (petrol expenses or pay for a DART or LUAS fare?) and spend only less than €800 a month on all that, when the minimum rent for someone living on their own would be at least 800??

Can I have a seed from that money tree you have growing in your back garden?

Quite obviously there's relevant information you're not sharing that allows you to live on less than 200 a week and put by savings, if indeed the information you've given is to be believed. Please don't insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe there's not more to it than what you've told me.

Edit-your not you're!

this is what I've heard from greentopia so far:

student
owns home, no info on how that came about
won't need any income in future, is off to be an artist
will have a 5k grant for that, thank you
will have made the PRSI contributions required to get COAP out of self employed artist income
will provide own water and food for free

lookit, I've not finished the thread yet but I'm trying to read about pensions. you're the last person here that anyone is going to learn anything useful from. pipe down, lay off detailing and pressing other people for the infinitesimal details of their plans when yours are nothing but bollocks.

thanks, like.

Stocks mar ya

PeteK*

How much do you get weekly from paying a pension of different amounts?
Like if you're paying €50/month, €75/month, €100+/month?

Should you go with one your employer has, or just go find your own?
What does it mean when your employer matches it?
I need to get up to speed on this because it's scary, I think anyway!

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Menas

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its madly obviously a good thing to do when you put it like that.

The employer contribution is a massive benefit to get with any job in the private sector.

jimgoose

Menas wrote: »

Its madly obviously a good thing to do when you put it like that.

The employer contribution is a massive benefit to get with any job in the private sector.

It certainly is. And a properly-run Defined-Benefit setup can see you retiring at about 65 or so on two-thirds of your former salary.

Rackstar

Bleeding China!!! 7.5% gone from my pension in a week