Should I be bothered by personal finance

Montage of Feck

I'm in my mid thirties with no health insurance, pension, stocks etc. but at the same time I have no dependents and have never been in debt and save regularly.
But going by posts in other threads I'm possibly an irresponsible goon by my lack of personal finances and planning for such.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Montage of Feck wrote: »

I'm in my mid thirties with no health insurance, pension, stocks etc. but at the same time I have no dependents and have never been in debt and save regularly.
But going by posts in other threads I'm possibly an irresponsible goon by my lack of personal finances and planning for such.

Mid forties and was the same at your age. Since then I have gotten health insurance, but no pension. I do have a "nest egg" though - inheritied some money and used it to buy property.

It's probably something you should keep an eye on to be honest over the next few years.

Galwayguy35

I'd definitely get health insurance if i was in your shoes, nobody thinks they might get a serious illness when you are young but it can happen.

mulbot

Montage of Feck wrote: »

I'm in my mid thirties with no health insurance, pension, stocks etc. but at the same time I have no dependents and have never been in debt and save regularly.
But going by posts in other threads I'm possibly an irresponsible goon by my lack of personal finances and planning for such.

I'd be using some of what you save for investment in some commodities/shares. No point in having large cash amounts just sitting in the bank.

Fionn1952

Montage of Feck wrote: »

I'm in my mid thirties with no health insurance, pension, stocks etc. but at the same time I have no dependents and have never been in debt and save regularly.
But going by posts in other threads I'm possibly an irresponsible goon by my lack of personal finances and planning for such.

I wouldn't worry too much about the stocks etc. If you're happy going through public hospitals, you're never going to bankrupt yourself with health costs (though I'd feel uncomfortable without health insurance myself).

The big one is the pension. If your work doesn't make pension contributions as part of your benefits package, I'd look at redirecting some of what you save into a PRSA.

If you take a look here, you can work out how much you should be putting aside to give you the income you need on retirement. The later you leave it, the more significant the % you have to put aside is. Depending on your income, it could be quite tax beneficial compared with saving the cash anyway.

https://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/LifeCycle/Useful-Resources/Pension-Calculator/

ILoveYourVibes

You should get health insurance now while you are still young. Young people don't realize how hard it is to get as they age or how much more they will be paying per year if they join later. Its not that i think you will get ill now. You won't. But even if you are a health 45 yr old or 50 yr old never been ill its still WAY more expensive to join but if you join NOW and it stays the same price for many situations or at least a lot less expensive.


That is irresponsible. You should have a pension.

Stocks tbh depends on where you are at financially. A 500,000 dividend stock portfolio yielding 3% that's 15,000 a year.
Is it worth it for yourself ?

Savings are a good start. But look into starting a PRSA if you don't have one you don't even have something for a future employer to pay into if you are in that position.

Everyone says you will need half your salary. Its a ridiculous vague figure. I think most Irish people should aim for at least two thirds to three quarters of their salary.

If you are earning 60k aim for at least 45k a year. People will possibly find even that hard to live on in the future.

OP you're not "irresponsible" as you're not exposing anybody else to your choices, per se. if I were you, I'd shop around for health insurance, and go and take financial/investment advice from a reputable professional (not someone on the Internet).

Sounds like you're already doing the right things in terms of savings, maybe your money could be yielding a little more for your future if you invest it in a way you're comfortable with, after taking all the appropriate financial advice.

Mrs OBumble

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

OP you're not "irresponsible" as you're not exposing anybody else to your choices, per se..

Yes he is. Old people without pensions will have to hecat least fed, watered and minimally accommodated by the state.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yes he is. Old people without pensions will have to hecat least fed, watered and minimally accommodated by the state.

Almost everyone gets a pension of some kind from the state, and there's not much difference between the contributory and non-contributory pensions. So it's a bit of a moot point.

OP is contributing, and is saving. He's perhaps not saving in the most efficient way possible, but this is far from being "irresponsible".

Mad_maxx

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Almost everyone gets a pension of some kind from the state, and there's not much difference between the contributory and non-contributory pensions. So it's a bit of a moot point.

OP is contributing, and is saving. He's perhaps not saving in the most efficient way possible, but this is far from being "irresponsible".

That situation is unsustainable

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

That situation is unsustainable

Can you show us your rough work?

Welfare transfers are paid for by current income, not from historic income (ie, your PRSI pays for today's pensioners, not for your pension).

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Can you show us your rough work?

Welfare transfers are paid for by current income, not from historic income (ie, your PRSI pays for today's pensioners, not for your pension).

Ye, ageing population. Fewer workers, more pensioners, less tax intake, plus a guarantee.
Mortality improvements seem to be declining in uk (may ne similar here who knows) plus retirement age has increased but still a burden. Esp as mortality improvements decreasing doesn't mean longevity itself is decreasing

SureYWouldntYa

Mad_maxx wrote: »

That situation is unsustainable

Currently 5 workers for every person getting a pension, its going to be 2 workers for every pension by 2040

With mandatory pensions contributions coming into effect soon that will help ease some of the burden long term, most people will just see it as another tax though and only pay in the minimum

ILoveYourVibes

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Can you show us your rough work?

Welfare transfers are paid for by current income, not from historic income (ie, your PRSI pays for today's pensioners, not for your pension).

Tax contributions are likely to be smaller in future coming from a smaller population that are of working age.

People are having fewer kids.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

The U.K. has talked about increasing its pension age to 75 by 2035, which might be copied here. As far as I know that doesn’t apply to civil servants.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Tax contributions are likely to be smaller in future coming from a smaller population that are of working age.

People are having fewer kids.

It’s odd then that we don’t encourage more kids, but that I suppose would go against other modern ideologies.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

Ye, ageing population. Fewer workers, more pensioners, less tax intake, plus a guarantee.

global population is rising, there will be no shortage of workers in our lifetimes, nor in our children's lifetimes.

ILoveYourVibes

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It’s odd then that we don’t encourage more kids, but that I suppose would go against other modern ideologies.

People can't afford them.

It will even out eventually. Its just societies change from the old way of thinking about families to the new way.

It won't keep shrinking forever. It will balance out eventually.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

global population is rising, there will be no shortage of workers in our lifetimes, nor in our children's lifetimes.

Global population isn't going to pay for irish pensions

Franz Von Peppercorn II

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

Currently 5 workers for every person getting a pension, its going to be 2 workers for every pension by 2040

With mandatory pensions contributions coming into effect soon that will help ease some of the burden long term, most people will just see it as another tax though and only pay in the minimum

Is that true in Ireland? We have a fairly high birthdate. 2-1 implies that there’s half as many people over 68 as from 21-68.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

bluewolf wrote: »

Global population isn't going to pay for irish pensions

I think he’s talking about immigration.

The 2-1 ratio doesn’t seem right to me unless life expectancy goes through the roof.

JohnnyFlash

We will all be living in a socialist utopia at that stage so I’m sure things like personal finances are nothing to worry about.

Mad_maxx

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

Currently 5 workers for every person getting a pension, its going to be 2 workers for every pension by 2040

With mandatory pensions contributions coming into effect soon that will help ease some of the burden long term, most people will just see it as another tax though and only pay in the minimum

Considering that a million workers in Ireland pay no tax worth talking about, that will just be another middle class tax

Raising the state pension any further should be seen as treason

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

Global population isn't going to pay for irish pensions

Migration will. We already see this happening in European states with ageing populations. The people who squak and catastrophise about the Irish age pyramid are difficult to sympathise with. They seem to take no account of migration, perhaps deliberately so.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Considering that a million workers in Ireland pay no tax worth talking about, that will just be another middle class tax

Raising the state pension any further should be seen as treason

The fix for the pensions is always an attack on the private sector worker. Don’t work - get the full pension. Do work and you may not. Public servants have a built in contract allowing them to retire at 65 still.

So under these schemes many, if not most, private workers will end up poor. If the U.K. system is brought in how many people will have jobs at 70? Unless there are string laws on ageism many won’t.

ILoveYourVibes

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

We will all be living in a socialist utopia at that stage so I’m sure things like personal finances are nothing to worry about.

You have high hopes.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Migration will. We already see this happening in European states with ageing populations. The people who squak and catastrophise about the Irish age pyramid are difficult to sympathise with. They seem to take no account of migration, perhaps deliberately so.

?

It’s countries like Italy who have a disastrous birth rate that elect fairly right wing governments. People don’t become more sympathetic to immigration because of a pension crisis.

Mad_maxx

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It’s odd then that we don’t encourage more kids, but that I suppose would go against other modern ideologies.

Having more kids is encouraged, just not towards people who are well educated and working

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

?

It’s countries like Italy who have a disastrous birth rate that elect fairly right wing governments. People don’t become more sympathetic to immigration because of a pension crisis.

We also can't rely on someone swooping in to fix a pensions crisis.
Maybe encouraging immigration is one solution, but it is a solution, not something that obviates the whole problem. No responsible person would look forward and say we've guaranteed x million euro per annum and don't have the projected resources to pay it... But it'll be grand

Mad_maxx

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The fix for the pensions is always an attack on the private sector worker. Don’t work - get the full pension. Do work and you may not. Public servants have a built in contract allowing them to retire at 65 still.

So under these schemes many, if not most, private workers will end up poor. If the U.K. system is brought in how many people will have jobs at 70? Unless there are string laws on ageism many won’t.

Public sector are viewed as more worthy, RTE work especially hard on this narative

Greyfox

Montage of Feck wrote: »

I'm in my mid thirties with no health insurance, pension, stocks etc. but at the same time I have no dependents and have never been in debt and save regularly.

You've also got to enjoy what's left of your youth. Put what you can into savings/pension but also make sure your enjoying the years that really matter which is the present, there's a lot of things you don't be able to do when your old

Mad_maxx

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

?

It’s countries like Italy who have a disastrous birth rate that elect fairly right wing governments. People don’t become more sympathetic to immigration because of a pension crisis.

Maybe those people flowing in on life boats from Libya don't instill huge confidence in your average Italian with respect of worker to retiree ratio?

Mad_maxx

bluewolf wrote: »

We also can't rely on someone swooping in to fix a pensions crisis.
Maybe encouraging immigration is one solution, but it is a solution, not something that obviates the whole problem. No responsible person would look forward and say we've guaranteed x million euro per annum and don't have the projected resources to pay it... But it'll be grand

Nothing starts getting done until we make a stand against low rent politicians like Willie o dea or Regina Doherty who make it their entire brief to buy cheap handy votes through raising the already too generous state pension

ILoveYourVibes

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Nothing starts getting done until we make a stand against low rent politicians like Willie o dea or Regina Doherty who make it their entire brief to buy cheap handy votes through raising the already too generous state pension

I think you get the reality. No politicians anywhere would or should do anything against pensioners unless they are against the wall.

They vote in huge numbers.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

?

It’s countries like Italy who have a disastrous birth rate that elect fairly right wing governments. People don’t become more sympathetic to immigration because of a pension crisis.

Are you saying that birth rates are related to ight-wing governments? I'm not sure I follow.

Italy is one of the biggest export economies in the world, somewhetr in the top 10 globally. It can handle a drop-off in working population better than most.

Immigration has been mentioned, we haven't even gotten to technological advances for productivity in the economy yet.

We can't have it both ways - the same people who are afraid of automation seem to be equally afraid of an ageing population, despite the fact that the former has tremendous potential in offsetting the costs of the growing elderly population.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

That said I’m fairly dubious about the supposed Irish pension crisis. If the ratio of workers to pensioners is expected to be 2-1 then it that means either a huge increase in the life expectancy or a major drop in the working population. However Ireland is at replacement levels of births and is easily compensated by immigration. Which means we are not seeing a drop of in numbers of workers per generation (far from it, actual numbers of the employed keeps rising outside recessions).

For there to be a 2-1 then there needs to be half as many pensioners over 68 as workers from 18-68. However even now you get about 12 years after 68.

If the pension continues to rise past 68 it will be even less. Life expectancy is actually not increasing or slowing down in many countries.

Italy may have a crisis though.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Are you saying that birth rates are related to ight-wing governments? I'm not sure I follow.

You said that migration will take care of a pension crisis. Yet Italy, which will have a pension crisis as it has a low birth rate, is anti immigration.

Italy is one of the biggest export economies in the world, somewhetr in the top 10 globally. It can handle a drop-off in working population better than most.

That’s ludicrous. Italy’s problems exist regardless how big it now is, even more so as it’s population declines.

Immigration has been mentioned, we haven't even gotten to technological advances for productivity in the economy yet.

This is goalpost moving so I’m not really going to engage except to say productivity increases are also falling in the West.

We can't have it both ways - the same people who are afraid of automation seem to be equally afraid of an ageing population, despite the fact that the former has tremendous potential in offsetting the costs of the growing elderly population.

That’s also a new argument.

The 2-1 seems to be mentioned in journal article. I was looking at the cso website but couldn't quickly see any projections

ILoveYourVibes

Op get professional advice.

But also ask your family and close friends for advice too. Its no harm.

Mad_maxx

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think you get the reality. No politicians anywhere would or should do anything against pensioners unless they are against the wall.

They vote in huge numbers.

The rest of us buy into the poor pensioner propoganda, we need to awaken to the fact that the elderly are the wealthiest demographic

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

The 2-1 seems to be mentioned in journal article. I was looking at the cso website but couldn't quickly see any projections

I think it must have come from here
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-plfp/populationandlabourforceprojections2017-2051/populationprojectionsresults/
Net migration taken into account
Previous page documents assumptions including mortality improvements

ILoveYourVibes

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The rest of us buy into the poor pensioner propoganda, we need to awaken to the fact that the elderly are the wealthiest demographic

That is why politicians won't touch them.

Mad_maxx

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

That is why politicians won't touch them.

Well then the penny needs to drop for the rest of us

Right now politicians have aprooval to spoil pensioners

Franz Von Peppercorn II

bluewolf wrote: »

The 2-1 seems to be mentioned in journal article. I was looking at the cso website but couldn't quickly see any projections

Seems entirely based on life expectancy increases continuing, and for some reason they are sticking to 65+ as the pension age.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The rest of us buy into the poor pensioner propoganda, we need to awaken to the fact that the elderly are the wealthiest demographic

By the time I’m old pensioners will be back to being poor. I expect to be income poor at least.

ILoveYourVibes

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

By the time I’m old pensioners will be back to being poor. I expect to be income poor at least.

its always poor when you're it

Graces7

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Nothing starts getting done until we make a stand against low rent politicians like Willie o dea or Regina Doherty who make it their entire brief to buy cheap handy votes through raising the already too generous state pension

#You keep saying this with no explanation or justification. Life on the state pension is far from easy even now. Trust me on that , from experience.

ILoveYourVibes

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

#You keep saying this with no explanation or justification. Life on the state pension is far from easy even now. Trust me on that , from experience.

Most pensioners are not on the state pension alone though. Yes it would be very tough if you were on the state pension alone.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

You said that migration will take care of a pension crisis. Yet Italy, which will have a pension crisis as it has a low birth rate, is anti immigration.

That's a complete non sequitur.

Italy has a dysfunctional economy & a similarly dysfunctional political system. It absolutely does, however, have the resources to overcome its demographic problem better than most, given the immense size of its export economy. Italy probably doesn't need migration of the scale that we will.

Mgraton can address our future ageing-population problem just like having babies would. In fact, migration is preferable for various reasons. I dont see what's complicated about this, or what Italy is thought to prove.

The world's population is growing. That population needs to be redistributed from time to time. Big deal.

Squall Leonhart

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

#You keep saying this with no explanation or justification. Life on the state pension is far from easy even now. Trust me on that , from experience.

Graces, with respect, I don't believe you are the typical pensioner from my reading of your posts over many years.

Majority of today's pensioners are not paying rent or mortgages, and have accumulated some wealth over a lifetime to facilitate a reasonably comfortable if not lavish lifestyle.

Those on the unemployment allowance basically received a promotion on retirement, their weekly payment increases.

But things will change I feel. There will be a lot more poor pensioners, or less well off, as there will be far more chained to paying a monthly rent.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

its always poor when you're it

Not sure what that means. With low interest rates and property stabilising in price there won’t be the wealth accumulation that previous generations had and very little income from any investments. You’d need a million or more to push up to median income.