Do you have a pension?

enfant terrible

How often are pension funds raided anyway. Is it happening regularly?

jimgoose

enfant terrible wrote: »

How often are pension funds raided anyway. Is it happening regularly?

Since 2011, there was a 0.6% levy on the full value of private pension funds on January 1st of the year in question. Noonan scrapped that in the most recent budget so it won't be happening for 2016 and beyond.

KomradeBishop

Graysen Helpless Spittoon wrote: »

The employer contribution is significant though you are losing a lot if you lose that.

Also I don't think most people really care about the ethical issue of companies they are investing in. They care about their money and growing their pension fund and I'd be in agreement. I don't really care if someone questions my ethics because I in invest in a company that they have decided is unethical to them.

Do you think people would really care that you think "ignoring ethical issues is not excusable"?

Surveys like this indicate that most people care about ethical issues when deciding where their money goes, and are willing to end up with less money as a result:

Fifty-five percent of global online consumers across 60 countries say they are willing to pay more for products and services provided by companies that are committed to positive social and environmental impact

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2014/global-consumers-are-willing-to-put-their-money-where-their-heart-is.html

People generally aren't sociopaths - they give a toss about ethics.

Graysen Helpless Spittoon wrote: »

Public service employees cannot opt out of their pension, the mechanism does not exist to do so.

You are making little out of the significant contribution that employers are putting towards peoples pensions and also the fact its a much more tax efficient way to get the money.

We're talking predominantly about private schemes here - I don't support public sector workers having mandatory schemes, and from the little I've read, public sector pension schemes significantly lack transparency.

I'm not 'making little' of anything - I'm making a big issue out of the fact that people are not nearly as cynical as they should be, about pension schemes - schemes which people usually have little knowledge of when it comes to the details, especially ethical details.

AlexisM

jimgoose wrote: »

Since 2011, there was a 0.6% levy on the full value of private pension funds on January 1st of the year in question. Noonan scrapped that in the most recent budget so it won't be happening for 2016 and beyond.

Until the next time the government want some easy cash with little prospect of revolt...

jimgoose

AlexisM wrote: »

Until the next time the government want some easy cash with little prospect of revolt...

Oh to be sure. I thought that was absolutely outrageous.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

The benefits of being in a pension scheme far outweigh the benefits of not being in one.

If you are a member of a scheme where personal contributions are optional you are literally getting something for nothing.

And if you are worried about losing all of your investment you can always invest it in lower risk bond or cash funds.

An employer is under no obligation to pay an employee who has opted out of their pension scheme any more than an employee who is in one.

You don't know if the benefits of being in a pension scheme, outweigh the benefits of not being in one - because that is only something you can decide on a case-by-case basis, after examining the risks of every individual pension scheme. Something I'd say people rarely do.

If you don't know the risks of scheme, you don't know anything about whether it's more beneficial or not. You're talking about 'on paper' benefits, that can be decimated or disappear entirely, due to hidden risks.


You were the one suggesting workers couldn't afford to not invest in a company pension - and I pointed out that if that were true, workers should be demanding a pay rise - workers have no obligation to work for a pittance.

jimgoose

jimgoose wrote: »

Oh to be sure. I thought that was absolutely outrageous.

Getting rid of the PRSI relief on a contribution was a bad move as well.

The government was supposed to be trying to encourage people, mainly lower paid workers, to pay into a pension but then they take away part of the incentive of having one.

KomradeBishop

cooperguy wrote: »

That is really misguided advice for a tonne of reasons. I'll list 3 though.

The employer usually matches your contribution. No matter how much you earn turning down doubling your investment every month is really bad idea. The compound interest on that over the life of the investment is massive.

Secondly, you keep talking about funds being mismanaged and raided. If your employer was matching your contributions you can afford to loose half your fund if things go wrong before ever loosing any money you put in yourself.

If you die your next of kin benefit, the money doesn't go up in smoke

Again, you're talking about 'on paper' benefits, of money you may never see. If an employer can contribute that money to your pension, they can afford to contribute that money to your wages instead - that's kind of indicative, that workers who opt-out, aren't exercising their bargaining power appropriately.

Instead of letting an employer bait-you into a fund that may get looted later on, use worker bargaining power to demand the contributions go to you directly - into your wages. That's a far better deal for workers - who can then go on to invest that in another pension fund if they desire.


Why on earth should an employers contributions be locked to only one fund anyway? Why should that not be transferable? Again, sounds like a bad deal for workers, that can be overcome by exercising bargaining power over their employer.

KomradeBishop

enfant terrible wrote: »

How often are pension funds raided anyway. Is it happening regularly?

Not just raiding specifically, but mismanagement in general - there are a good number of companies in Ireland, where their pension funds have massive holes in the balance sheet, that threaten their future.

Kiith

32 and no pension. May have had one in one of my earlier jobs, but not sure. I will be signing up for the new company scheme on Monday though. It's well past time i did it.

Knowing nothing about pensions, i'm assuming i should just go with whatever the company scheme is, right? (i'm reading up on it now as well)

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Again, you're talking about 'on paper' benefits, of money you may never see. If an employer can contribute that money to your pension, they can afford to contribute that money to your wages instead - that's kind of indicative, that workers who opt-out, aren't exercising their bargaining power appropriately.

Instead of letting an employer bait-you into a fund that may get looted later on, use worker bargaining power to demand the contributions go to you directly - into your wages. That's a far better deal for workers - who can then go on to invest that in another pension fund if they desire.


Why on earth should an employers contributions be locked to only one fund anyway? Why should that not be transferable? Again, sounds like a bad deal for workers, that can be overcome by exercising bargaining power over their employer.

It's just a benefit provided by the employer to aid the employee in their retirement. Its not entirely altruistic as they do get some tax breaks on contributions but, on the whole, it is a very good thing.

Most companies will cover the costs of running the scheme. Giving the money directly to the employee and having them set up their own pension funds will mean they will have to pay the fees and charges.

It's also a little irresponsible as there is no way of enforcing that the money given in lieu of pension will be invested in one. This could lead to employees ending up with nothing to fund their retirement.

The contributions aren't locked into any one fund. The member has control over how they would like their money invested, within the investment options available.

Also, if you leave the company you can always transfer your fund value to another occupational scheme. Or apply for early retirement after age 50.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes the tax relief speaks for itself

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In the example given, I don't see any reason why the law can't be adjusted, to grant equivalent tax rebates for income the worker decides to redirect into a pension (not the zero-tax treatment though - deal with that below).
There is no reason at all, why the pension fund that a workers money ends up in, should have to be under the control of or influenced in any way, by the parent company - rife with potential conflicts of interest - the system should be setup so that it's the workers choice.

The system as it is, where the employer contribution is tax-free, is ridiculous - that should immediately be changed, so that a tax is placed on that. That looks a lot like a tax loophole, that you probably find small companies/partnerships exploiting, for tax efficiency purposes - should be closed immediately.

God forbid people be provided for. Cease all benefits at once.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The system as it is, where the employer contribution is tax-free, is ridiculous - that should immediately be changed, so that a tax is placed on that. That looks a lot like a tax loophole, that you probably find small companies/partnerships exploiting, for tax efficiency purposes - should be closed immediately.

It most certainly should not be closed. We need more tax incentives and ways for employers and employees to deal with money in a tax efficient way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

God forbid people be provided for. Cease all benefits at once.

Yes because that's exactly what I said - not at all a hyperbolic misrepresentation, lacking an actual argument...*insert sarcasm smiley*

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes because that's exactly what I said - not at all a hyperbolic misrepresentation, lacking an actual argument...*insert sarcasm smiley*

You've been talking tarmac for a couple of pages now.

Might be best to get some fresh air or a good night's sleep, time away from the keyboard at the very least.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Getting rid of potential tax loopholes is perfectly compatible with allowing people to 'accumulate adequate retirement savings'.

Pension schemes seem to be one of the major areas where tax loopholes are prevalent, in many countries - the rules need a lot of tightening up.

This is about stopping people engaging in tax avoidance, while keeping pension tax incentives - the former is massively harmful, and it's not acceptable that pensions can be abused in that manner.

FrStone

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Surveys like this indicate that most people care about ethical issues when deciding where their money goes, and are willing to end up with less money as a result:

Fifty-five percent of global online consumers across 60 countries say they are willing to pay more for products and services provided by companies that are committed to positive social and environmental impact

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2014/global-consumers-are-willing-to-put-their-money-where-their-heart-is.html

People generally aren't sociopaths - they give a toss about ethics.


We're talking predominantly about private schemes here - I don't support public sector workers having mandatory schemes, and from the little I've read, public sector pension schemes significantly lack transparency.

I'm not 'making little' of anything - I'm making a big issue out of the fact that people are not nearly as cynical as they should be, about pension schemes - schemes which people usually have little knowledge of when it comes to the details, especially ethical details.

Oh for heavens sake! Most people investing in their pensions care about the return, I don't give a **** about ethics. A chunk of my fund is invested in alcohol and tobacco companies. Why? The return is good.

Ben Gadot

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Getting rid of potential tax loopholes is perfectly compatible with allowing people to 'accumulate adequate retirement savings'.

Pension schemes seem to be one of the major areas where tax loopholes are prevalent, in many countries - the rules need a lot of tightening up.

This is about stopping people engaging in tax avoidance, while keeping pension tax incentives - the former is massively harmful, and it's not acceptable that pensions can be abused in that manner.

Pensions are one of the most highly regulated areas in this country, so there's little room for abuse. What do you suggest as further tightening of the rules and what aspect of these rules do you believe in particular can give cause to tax avoidance?

KomradeBishop

FrStone wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake! Most people investing in their pensions care about the return, I don't give a **** about ethics. A chunk of my fund is invested in alcohol and tobacco companies. Why? The return is good.

Everybody cares about the return - and I've provided stats showing that, when it comes to money, most people prefer to be ethical.

I don't know what exact tobacco companies you'll have invested in, but if it's one of the more renowned cancer-denialist companies - and if you're aware of that - that'd reflect quite shíttily on you as a person.

jeamimus

There should be a tax break for people saving and investing their own income (that they already paid tax on). Taxing savings doesnt work well anyway... Look at the pathetic dirt returns and also CGT returns are well down because investments arent being turned over because of the tax.
To date tax, breaks were more designed to help the financial and the construction industries, not to encourage people to save or invest for their retirement.

jeamimus

KomradeBishop wrote: »

E
I don't know what exact tobacco companies you'll have invested in, but if it's one of the more renowned cancer-denialist companies - and if you're aware of that - that'd reflect quite shíttily on you as a person.

Pathetic. And every shopkeeper who stocks cigarettes is also a sh!tty person etc etc... Tobacco is a legal low risk business with solid earning potential, paying good dividends.. perfect for any retirement portfolio, even for non sh!tty people.

The J Stands for Jay

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Getting rid of potential tax loopholes is perfectly compatible with allowing people to 'accumulate adequate retirement savings'.

Pension schemes seem to be one of the major areas where tax loopholes are prevalent, in many countries - the rules need a lot of tightening up.

This is about stopping people engaging in tax avoidance, while keeping pension tax incentives - the former is massively harmful, and it's not acceptable that pensions can be abused in that manner.

Any examples of what you believe is the loophole that needs to be closed?

KomradeBishop

jeamimus wrote: »

Pathetic. And every shopkeeper who stocks cigarettes is also a sh!tty person etc etc... Tobacco is a legal low risk business with solid earning potential, paying good dividends.. perfect for any retirement portfolio, even for non sh!tty people.

You're trying to ignore what I'm talking about - companies responsible for denialism of tobacco related cancer and denialism of nicotine addiction - and are pretending that I'm talking about tobacco companies as a whole (as if merely being a tobacco company is the issue, when it's not). You're misrepresenting me.

What the cancer-and-addiction-denialist tobacco companies did was illegal racketeering - and by corrupting public discourse and scientific research, to suppress public knowledge about smoking causing cancer, that led to the avoidable deaths of millions:
https://pando.com/2015/07/07/shillers-killers/

They are among the biggest scumbags out of any industry - and supporting them with your investments, reflects on your own ethics/reputation.

Money/profit does not let you justify unethical support for companies like that - that's a sociopathic idea.

One More Toy

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're trying to ignore what I'm talking about - companies responsible for denialism of tobacco related cancer and denialism of nicotine addiction - and are pretending that I'm talking about tobacco companies as a whole (as if merely being a tobacco company is the issue, when it's not). You're misrepresenting me.

What the cancer-and-addiction-denialist tobacco companies did was illegal racketeering - and by corrupting public discourse and scientific research, to suppress public knowledge about smoking causing cancer, that led to the avoidable deaths of millions:
https://pando.com/2015/07/07/shillers-killers/

They are among the biggest scumbags out of any industry - and supporting them with your investments, reflects on your own ethics/reputation.

Money/profit does not let you justify unethical support for companies like that - that's a sociopathic idea.

I own a trivial sum of shares in BAT. I also had cancer. So it's kinda a f*ck you to them when they have to hand over dividend money :-D

KomradeBishop

McGaggs wrote: »

Any examples of what you believe is the loophole that needs to be closed?

The employer contribution to pensions has zero tax, even though your own contribution doesn't - and it looks like this allows people who setup small companies/partnerships for tax efficiency purposes, a way of funnelling money into investments at reduced taxation.

Your contribution is made before tax