State pension

hawthorne

https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Pensions_consultation_2018.pdf

This file gives you the winners and loosers of the proposed changes on page 32 and 33.
The calculations for the sample persons George and Allan are wrong.
The TCA 2012 figure for both of them should be 62%. That means George is loosing 36% under the proposed new regime and Alan is loosing 38%. Both figures are a huge drop.
I did not check the other figures- there might be more mistakes in the samples.

splinter65

hawthorne wrote: »

It is grossly unfair for people who have been out of work due to no fault of their own.
Anyone who was sick for a good number of years is loosing heavily under the new system.
Anyone who worked outside the state in a country with no pension agreements with Ireland for a number of years will loose all those years.
There should be a a number of years with a transition period to bring in the new system. In comments from the Septembre 2018 survey I saw many organisations proposing a period of 7 to 9 years.

Anyone who was getting DA for a long time was not going to get a full state pension con under the current method anyway. They get a full Non Con instead and will continue to do so.
Anyone who worked outside Ireland, the EU, US, Canada etc wasn’t going to get a full con pension either. They should apply to wherever they worked for their pension.

hawthorne

Anyone on IB or JB got credits which can be used for the pension. Yes- it is different with DA or JA.No credits there- only under special circumstances.
Till now you can use all your JA/IB credits - but there will be a cap of 10 years under the new proposal.Look at the above mentioned samples of George and Alan- their contributory pension drops by over a third- while under the old system they could have made it to 98%...just a fiver less than the full pension.
You must have worked and paid a minimum amount in every country to get a part pension. What about those who worked abroad- but just stay under the minimum required time and financial contributions.
Surely you can get the non- contributory pension. But what if your wifes income is too high or you aquire an inheretance?

Dodge

That proposal is outdated. As it was before the consultations

However it allows 10 years of credits for JA and JB. I think that it a very fair amount

I do not believe that workers being rewarded for working longer is ‘cruel’ or ‘unfair’

The other stuff you mention such as no reward for working abroad is already in place.

Dodge

hawthorne wrote: »

.
Surely you can get the non- contributory pension. But what if your wifes income is too high or you aquire an inheretance?

Then you can spend that money as you wish. What you’re arguing is that the state should provide a large pension for people too wealthy for the means tested payment, but who haven’t contributed enough for the contributory pension? Laughable

As I said the new system is fairer

splinter65

ote="hawthorne;112002138"]Anyone on IB or JB got credits which can be used for the pension. Yes- it is different with DA or JA.No credits there- only under special circumstances.
Till now you can use all your JA/IB credits - but there will be a cap of 10 years under the new proposal.Look at the above mentioned samples of George and Alan- their contributory pension drops by over a third- while under the old system they could have made it to 98%...just a fiver less than the full pension.
You must have worked and paid a minimum amount in every country to get a part pension. What about those who worked abroad- but just stay under the minimum required time and financial contributions.
Surely you can get the non- contributory pension. But what if your wifes income is too high or you aquire an inheretance?[/quote]

When you are applying for a non con pension then you are saying “I am past working age and we don’t have enough income to live comfortably from week to week so I need a pension in order to manage”.
If your wife had too high an income for you to get a non contributory pension (taking into account that they disregard the first €200 of her wages)then that means you have enough money on a weekly basis to live and you don’t need a pension.
So if you don’t have enough contributions and or credits to get even the minimum amount of a con pension for whatever reason and you have too much income from other sources for a non con then there’s no reason for the state to give you something anyway.
There has to be limits and caps and rules or it would just be unmanageable.

hawthorne

There is no cap on IB/JB credits in the UK. And they have only a 35 year qualification period for the full pension.
In other countries like The Netherlands or Denmark you get a year's credit for every year you lived there. You don't even have to work- your presence is enough.
I think that the new system is rushed in too quickly. There should be a change over time of several years or so. The cut-off point next autumn is too early.The French government tried to ram through changes in the French pension system. The argument was the same- the present system is unfair. People went out on the streets and made their voices heard. So the MP pulled back and offered to introduce a 13 year change over period.

Dodge

The French protests were over public service pensions, not the state pension

The Irish state pension is significantly higher than the UK pension. If we were to adopt their qualifying methods, we would need to drop the rates. And that isn’t happening

Most other countries, including Denmark, have earnings related elements.

The Irish state pension needs some tweaking, but it’s overall a good system.

They’ve been talking about TCA since 2007. It certainly isn’t rushed. I can’t see how it will be ready for the end of next year though

hawthorne

splinter65 wrote: »

Anyone who was getting DA for a long time was not going to get a full state pension con under the current method anyway. They get a full Non Con instead and will continue to do so.
Anyone who worked outside Ireland, the EU, US, Canada etc wasn’t going to get a full con pension either. They should apply to wherever they worked for their pension.

Under the present average system a period of working abroad did very little damage to your Irish pension. Let's say you worked for 5 years in different EU countries for the minimum wage. You might be able to pool your EU and Irish contributions and credits and get from each country a pro rata pension. But with a minimum wage the income from those pensions will be lower than the payment you would get from an Irish TCA pension. The Germans have a system which favours those who pay more into the system. Here in Ireland you get the same amount every time you earn just 38 euros. Huge difference in the PSRI contributions in both countries.
And- again- what about those countries who have no pension agreement with Ireland? Someone with no IB/JB credits in Ireland cannot fill the void.
A fellow who worked those years abroad might compensate any losses with the wide average bands we have in Ireland. It is still possible to get 98% of the full pension with only just a 40 week yearly average.This possibility is gone with the new system.
The devil is in the detail in the new system. The vast majorityof people might be ok with the TCA system. As they were with the average system.
But there are people who are not ok.
I know there is still the non- contributory pension. You should not forget that that pension is tied to your presence in Ireland. This is a problem for people who want to live with their kids and grandkids over the winter in other countries those folks moved to. I know a few couples who have a contributory pension and spent the winter months in Spain. Someone on a non contributory pension could not do that.They might actually loose that pension altogether.
I am sure there are other disadvantages with the NC pension.

hawthorne

Dodge wrote: »

The French protests were over public service pensions, not the state pension

The Irish state pension is significantly higher than the UK pension. If we were to adopt their qualifying methods, we would need to drop the rates. And that isn’t happening

Most other countries, including Denmark, have earnings related elements.

The Irish state pension needs some tweaking, but it’s overall a good system.

They’ve been talking about TCA since 2007. It certainly isn’t rushed. I can’t see how it will be ready for the end of next year though

I cannot see the TCA system either being introduced by autumn 2020. If the present administration looses the GE in Spring and a FF lead government with Labour and the Greens as junior partners comes in, we can be sure Labour wants the rise of the pension age to 68 overturned. And I am pretty sure someone else wants other changes as well. "Fiver Willie" will have his say- and price!

171170

hawthorne wrote: »

I cannot see the TCA system either being introduced by autumn 2020. If the present administration looses the GE in Spring and a FF lead government with Labour and the Greens as junior partners comes in, we can be sure Labour wants the rise of the pension age to 68 overturned. And I am pretty sure someone else wants other changes as well. "Fiver Willie" will have his say- and price!

You appear to have forgotten, or are unaware, that the National Pensions Framework was a FF production, inherited by the present Government, not the other way around!

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/National-Pensions-Framework.aspx So it's FF's brainchild.

And if Dim Willie tries to act the populist clown - as no doubt he will - you can rest assured that he'll be slapped down firmly by both his Party Leader and by the next Minister for Finance.

hawthorne

The pension reform was actually Brussels/Frau Merkel's idea- or better diktat. Times changed since.
We will see what will happen down the road. It will surely get interesting.

171170

hawthorne wrote: »

The pension reform was actually Brussels/Frau Merkel's idea- or better diktat. Times changed since.
We will see what will happen down the road. It will surely get interesting.

Times have indeed changed since - for the worse!

If you had taken the time to read the link that I provided, then you'd have read:-

"The inescapable fact is that for every pensioner we have now there are around six people at work to support them; by 2060 that figure will be less than two. The sooner we face this inevitability, the better prepared we will be to meet it."

hawthorne

171170 wrote: »

Times have indeed changed since - for the worse!

If you had taken the time to read the link that I provided, then you'd have read:-

"The inescapable fact is that for every pensioner we have now there are around six people at work to support them; by 2060 that figure will be less than two. The sooner we face this inevitability, the better prepared we will be to meet it."

All known for decades.Nothing done about it.
Like climate change. Also nothing done about it.
It is in every country the same thing.F.ex. the Germans are facing a pension time bomb of over 100 billion euros. Even with the harshest reforms they will not be able to change that.
The human being always lives in the present- and not the future.

171170

hawthorne wrote: »

All known for decades.Nothing done about it.
Like climate change. Also nothing done about it.
It is in every country the same thing.F.ex. the Germans are facing a pension time bomb of over 100 billion euros. Even with the harshest reforms they will not be able to change that.
The human being always lives in the present- and not the future.

Yet there you are blathering on about the prospects of Willie O'Dee saving your pension. :rolleyes: Give me a break!

Dodge

Literally every country in the world is making changes to their pension systems.

Most are increasing the age. Most are also making changes to qualification. Most are also making changes to the rates payable

The idea that Ireland is being forced to make chances by outside actors is simply not true

hawthorne

Dodge wrote: »

Literally every country in the world is making changes to their pension systems.

Most are increasing the age. Most are also making changes to qualification. Most are also making changes to the rates payable

The idea that Ireland is being forced to make chances by outside actors is simply not true

LOL!

Where have you been for the last 10 years?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2010/nov/28/ireland-bailout-full-government-statement

It was the EU-aka Frau Merkel-which pushed us into the reforms. It was part of the bailout programme!

But you are right in one thing: The neo liberals are trying to take pension rights away in many countries!

Dodge

The green paper on pensions is from 2007 and proposed many of the changes (including TCA)

And pension reforms he already started long before that (increase in the minimum number of contributions was legislated for in 1997 for example). It is simply untrue to suggest that Ireland were forced into these changes by the troika or anything else.

Once again, the changes that have been announced, and more that are on the way, may disproportionately effect you but some are necessary and others are to ensure a fairer pension going forward

171170

hawthorne wrote: »

LOL!

Where have you been for the last 10 years?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2010/nov/28/ireland-bailout-full-government-statement

It was the EU-aka Frau Merkel-which pushed us into the reforms. It was part of the bailout programme!

But you are right in one thing: The neo liberals are trying to take pension rights away in many countries!

What a load of utter tosh! I've never heard anyone use the words "neo-liberals" as a synonym for "economically aware"! So give yourself a banana for that outburst of utter bilge. Mind you, I've yet to encounter a Guardian reader whose intellect exceeds that of my pet goldfish.

And kindly put Frau Merkel back in your sac and stop waving her in front of us like some kind of 21st century codpiece.

hawthorne

171170 wrote: »

What a load of utter tosh! I've never heard anyone use the words "neo-liberals" as a synonym for "economically aware"! So give yourself a banana for that outburst of utter bilge. Mind you, I've yet to encounter a Guardian reader whose intellect exceeds that of my pet goldfish.

And kindly put Frau Merkel back in your sac and stop waving her in front of us like some kind of 21st century codpiece.

Could you please provide evidence how much money we would save in switching from the average system to the TCA system?
What exactly are the long term benefits? Any proof that a change makes the pension system more sustainable?

Take note: Yes- there were plans to change the pension system in the past. But there was not much work done until the Troika made this a key demand in their bailout plan. No use denying this fact. Without Brussels this "reform" would be still some ideas on paper.

I am sorry that you do not like "The Guardian". I was only looking for some proof for the Troika's demand and "google" delivered me that article at once. Of course there is much more:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/eu-s-troika-representative-denies-bailout-creates-democratic-deficit-1.551153


And- yes- these cuts in pensions all over the globe are a neo liberal agenda and an attempt to abolish the welfare state.

Dodge

hawthorne wrote: »

Could you please provide evidence how much money we would save in switching from the average system to the TCA system?
What exactly are the long term benefits? Any proof that a change makes the pension system more sustainable?

You’ve said they’re ‘cruel’ and now you’re saying there’ll be no change to the costs? You can’t have both

The biggest benefit is the move towards fairness. Before TCA it was possible for someone to work 40 years and not receive the full pension. It’s also possible to work 10 years and receive a full pension

In the near future that won’t be the case. When you add in home caring credits, it provides a much fairer contributory pension

hawthorne

Dodge wrote: »

You’ve said they’re ‘cruel’ and now you’re saying there’ll be no change to the costs? You can’t have both

The biggest benefit is the move towards fairness. Before TCA it was possible for someone to work 40 years and not receive the full pension. It’s also possible to work 10 years and receive a full pension

In the near future that won’t be the case. When you add in home caring credits, it provides a much fairer contributory pension

The possibility to get a pension for only 10 years work is an extreme anomality.
SW admitted themselves that this way is very rare. No reason to change the whole pension system.This can be changed with a simple new rule added for cases like this.
The possibility of working 40 years and not receiving the full pension is also a rare possibility. In that case nearly everybody just got 5 euros less! ONLY a FIVER less! The price of a pint?
It really sounds bad if you claim that "someone is not getting the full pension". But if you put this into perspective and say that "it is just a few euros less than the top prize" it sounds much less dramatic and reflects reality better.
Why fix a system which is not broken?
And why not having a longer transition period as suggested by many who answered the public discussion?
Cruel- of course it is not cruel for those who are no affected. But what about those who are?

There is a lot of talk about sustainability. I cannot see how the proposed system in itself can save money.
I tell you what is really needed- but nobody dares to mention: We badly need a big rise in the PRSI contribution. 4% is a joke. Have a look at other countries.Germany f.ex. has a rate of 18.6%. Now- that rate would put our pension on a sound footing!

Dodge

So now you want us to copy Germany? Hmm

Anyway, the two cases I mentioned are clearly at the extremes but there are lots of unfair cases in between. (30 years getting less than 20 etc etc).

The averaging system absolutely had to go. The TCA system is a fairer, simpler system

And once again, it is not cruel to reward those who have worked longer and contributed more to the SI system.

We have the safety net of the non-contributory pension for those who need it

The people who will lost out will have either paid little/no prsi and have significant wealth. It is ABSURD to claim the system is being cruel to them

There is simply no logical argument to suggest this move towards a fairer system is cruel

Caranica

TCA is definitely much fairer. My mother was only getting €78; under the old scheme. She got a nice back payment and an extra €92 a week with TCA. It's still not a lot of money but it's made a huge difference to her

hawthorne

Caranica wrote: »

TCA is definitely much fairer. My mother was only getting €78; under the old scheme. She got a nice back payment and an extra €92 a week with TCA. It's still not a lot of money but it's made a huge difference to her

According to SW about 50% of all cases who qualified for the current transition period (anybody who reached pension age since 2012) got a pay increase.
https://www.thejournal.ie/pension-increase-rate-review-4649179-May2019/

I cannot find more recent figures, but I heard on Drivetime some weeks ago that only about 40% of all cases examined got a pay increase. I cannot say how much. It was expected first that nearly everybody would be better of- but that turned out to be untrue.

I presume that your mother probably benefitted from the child credits or any caring credits.

hawthorne

Dodge wrote: »

So now you want us to copy Germany? Hmm

Anyway, the two cases I mentioned are clearly at the extremes but there are lots of unfair cases in between. (30 years getting less than 20 etc etc).

The averaging system absolutely had to go. The TCA system is a fairer, simpler system

And once again, it is not cruel to reward those who have worked longer and contributed more to the SI system.

We have the safety net of the non-contributory pension for those who need it

The people who will lost out will have either paid little/no prsi and have significant wealth. It is ABSURD to claim the system is being cruel to them

There is simply no logical argument to suggest this move towards a fairer system is cruel

Sure, sure...

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/pensions/watch-out-for-costly-changes-to-state-pension-from-2020-on-37042588.html

iamwhoiam

If my “ yearly average “ works out better for me than the new TCA system will i get whichever is higher ? My contributory pension form has just been submitted for a pension in 2020 . I was caring at home for my kids under 12 for 8 years and worked part time for some of my 37 years working life
Thank you for any help with this .

hawthorne

iamwhoiam wrote: »

If my “ yearly average “ works out better for me than the new TCA system will i get whichever is higher ? My contributory pension form has just been submitted for a pension in 2020 . I was caring at home for my kids under 12 for 8 years and worked part time for some of my 37 years working life
Thank you for any help with this .

You will get what ever works out better for you.
Your application is looked at under both systems. You get the higher payment of both versions.

iamwhoiam

hawthorne wrote: »

You will get what ever works out better for you.
Your application is looked at under both systems. You get the higher payment.

Thank you very much for the reply

Dodge

hawthorne wrote: »

Sure, sure...

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/pensions/watch-out-for-costly-changes-to-state-pension-from-2020-on-37042588.html

What part of the state pension changes do you think are cruel?