Cornmarket scare me, everytime!

Starkystark

Cornmarket were in our school last week. The man gave his spiel about how important they were to us and how we all need to look at our affairs and make investments now.

He then went on to give differences in pensions and retirement ages based on the year you started teaching! For post 2012 people, myself included - we will only be able to retire at 68? and will only get 8,000 per annum? Is this right?

He told me the two pensions I have enlisted on my payslip are: one to go towards my future spouse and children in the event I die. And the other pension - the one I seemingly pay less into is towards my pension?

I rang payroll about it - and they said one pension was towards the lump sum I will get when I retire. And the second is my yearly pension

Two conflicting pieces of information?

rainbowtrout

In my opinion they spiel they give when they come into schools is scaremongering at best and misselling of financial products at worst.

Your pension consists of your teaching pension and the state pension combined. If you started from 2013 onwards it will be calculated based on your career average earnings. This certainly reduces post 2013 pensions in comparison to pre 2013 with the same years served and taking into account the different pay scales.

However, the state pension is approximately 12k per year. If you went and stacked shelves in Tesco for 40 years and made your PRSI contributions you will get 12k at 68.

So for a guy from Cornmarket to go into a school (and we had similar in ours) and state that you will come out with 8k on retirement is disgraceful.

If they are trying to move the goalposts and and only count the portion of your final pension that comes from teacher contributions and not include the state pension it is still scaremongering.

A simple calculation for pre 2013 is as follows.

1/80 x number of years worked x final salary.

e.g. 40 years worked full service = 1/80 x 40 = 40/80 = 1/2

1/2 by a final salary of e.g. 60k = 30k pension.

That 30k pension consists of the 12k from the state pension and 18k which comes from the contributions you have made through superannuation on your salary over your teaching career.

There is also the lump sum, which in the simplest calculation is 3 times the figure you get for the pension so for this example is 90k.


The new pension is calculated in much the same way except for the final salary. You would have to look at your annual earnings from teaching from each year worked and get the average and slot that figure into the calculation so it will be lower.



As for retirement: the state pension will not be paid out until 68. Teachers who started pre 2004 have to retire at 65. Teachers who started after 2004 effectively have to work to 65 as their teaching pension will not be paid out until then. They could in theory go at an earlier age but they would have to have another source of income.

Payroll will give you the correct information about your pay and pension, cornmarket reps are selling a product to gain commission.

Your payslip probably shows Superannuation 1, Superannuation 5 and Widows and Orphans. S1/5 are going into the pension. The other is the bit that is paid out in the event of your death in service.

r93kaey5p2izun

I recently received info from the TUI regarding the new pension scheme. Because it's based on career average salary it will vary but their calculations for a typical person put the yearly amount at €22000 inc state pension and lump sum of €65000. And yes, no pension until 68 even if 40 years completed earlier. This was compared to the pre-2013 scheme of €35000 per year and lump sum of €105000 with pension payable once 40 years complete.

Starkystark

rainbowtrout wrote: »

In my opinion they spiel they give when they come into schools is scaremongering at best and misselling of financial products at worst.

Your pension consists of your teaching pension and the state pension combined. If you started from 2013 onwards it will be calculated based on your career average earnings. This certainly reduces post 2013 pensions in comparison to pre 2013 with the same years served and taking into account the different pay scales.

However, the state pension is approximately 12k per year. If you went and stacked shelves in Tesco for 40 years and made your PRSI contributions you will get 12k at 68.

So for a guy from Cornmarket to go into a school (and we had similar in ours) and state that you will come out with 8k on retirement is disgraceful.

If they are trying to move the goalposts and and only count the portion of your final pension that comes from teacher contributions and not include the state pension it is still scaremongering.

A simple calculation for pre 2013 is as follows.

1/80 x number of years worked x final salary.

e.g. 40 years worked full service = 1/80 x 40 = 40/80 = 1/2

1/2 by a final salary of e.g. 60k = 30k pension.

That 30k pension consists of the 12k from the state pension and 18k which comes from the contributions you have made through superannuation on your salary over your teaching career.

There is also the lump sum, which in the simplest calculation is 3 times the figure you get for the pension so for this example is 90k.


The new pension is calculated in much the same way except for the final salary. You would have to look at your annual earnings from teaching from each year worked and get the average and slot that figure into the calculation so it will be lower.



As for retirement: the state pension will not be paid out until 68. Teachers who started pre 2004 have to retire at 65. Teachers who started after 2004 effectively have to work to 65 as their teaching pension will not be paid out until then. They could in theory go at an earlier age but they would have to have another source of income.

Payroll will give you the correct information about your pay and pension, cornmarket reps are selling a product to gain commission.

Your payslip probably shows Superannuation 1, Superannuation 5 and Widows and Orphans. S1/5 are going into the pension. The other is the bit that is paid out in the event of your death in service.

Thank you so much. Honest, I try stay away from them. When I heard his spiel, I felt like walking out on the job. There’s no way I could afford AVCs or anything as such right now.

It’s a sad case though that we have to work till we’re 68. I don’t see myself in front of a class of teenagers at 68.

selectamatic

I haven't bothered listening to their pension spiel yet and probably never will but that said they are outstanding for car insurance.

TheDriver

They love leaving out the supplementary pension section for pre 2004 a class prsi

Corkgirl18

I met a guy from Cornmarket last week and he said at best retirement for us will be 68. Apparently the government can move it if they wish so its more likely it'll be 70 in another 40 years. Any truth in this?
I'm not going near AVCs but I think I'm going to go for salary protection. Teachers in school told me I'd be silly not to get it.

planetorez

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Teachers who started pre 2004 have to retire at 65.

Are you sure this is the case? From ASTI website:
Compulsory retirement age for teachers who commenced teaching before 1st April, 2004 and whose service is not interrupted for a period greater than 26 weeks is 70 years of age, i.e. teachers must retire no later than the end of the school year in which they reach their 70th birthday. The mandatory retirement age was extended by the enactment of the Public Service Superannuation (Age of Retirement) Act 2018 on the 26th December 2018. Teachers who were previously required to retire at the end of the school year in which they reached 65 years of age may now continue in employment on an uninterrupted basis. The following FAQs provide further information on this change:

byhookorbycrook

Wouldn’t touch Cornmarket with a barge pole .

rainbowtrout

planetorez wrote: »

Are you sure this is the case? From ASTI website:
Compulsory retirement age for teachers who commenced teaching before 1st April, 2004 and whose service is not interrupted for a period greater than 26 weeks is 70 years of age, i.e. teachers must retire no later than the end of the school year in which they reach their 70th birthday. The mandatory retirement age was extended by the enactment of the Public Service Superannuation (Age of Retirement) Act 2018 on the 26th December 2018. Teachers who were previously required to retire at the end of the school year in which they reached 65 years of age may now continue in employment on an uninterrupted basis. The following FAQs provide further information on this change:

Didn’t know they had changed the wording. A pre 2004 teacher can go on full pension before 65. You’d want to be mad or extremely broke to still be opting to teach until 70 if you’re pre 2004.

At this point in time I feel quite privileged that i can go at 55 with 33 years worked and get my pension.

TheDriver

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Didn’t know they had changed the wording. A pre 2004 teacher can go on full pension before 65. You’d want to be mad or extremely broke to still be opting to teach until 70 if you’re pre 2004.

At this point in time I feel quite privileged that i can go at 55 with 33 years worked and get my pension.

Same here and the supplementary pension will kick in

deiseindublin

Is it pre April 1995, D1 stamp, that won't get state pension?
And A1 stamp, post April 1995, does?
Lump sum of 1.5 times retiring salary, based on 40 years service.

Then career average + state pension for 2013 onwards.

mtoutlemonde

We had a guy in from Cornmarket last year, he sounded great in the staff room but when you had a 1-1 he threw numbers at me at a mile a minute. He nearly set me up for AVCs and Salary protection. He didn't like the fact that I would want to think about it before doing it, saying that 'he wouldn't be back in the area for at least three months'. I don't think he realised (or maybe he did) what pressure selling is. Needless to say, when I received the questionnaire on how I felt the meeting went - that I felt pressured and mis-informed - now I am not for one minute trying to deny a man a job but he needed help with his sales tactics.

rainbowtrout

mtoutlemonde wrote: »

We had a guy in from Cornmarket last year, he sounded great in the staff room but when you had a 1-1 he threw numbers at me at a mile a minute. He nearly set me up for AVCs and Salary protection. He didn't like the fact that I would want to think about it before doing it, saying that 'he wouldn't be back in the area for at least three months'. I don't think he realised (or maybe he did) what pressure selling is. Needless to say, when I received the questionnaire on how I felt the meeting went - that I felt pressured and mis-informed - now I am not for one minute trying to deny a man a job but he needed help with his sales tactics.

To be honest, I think pressurised selling and a bit of misinformation seems to be standard.

planetorez

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Didn’t know they had changed the wording. A pre 2004 teacher can go on full pension before 65. You’d want to be mad or extremely broke to still be opting to teach until 70 if you’re pre 2004.

At this point in time I feel quite privileged that i can go at 55 with 33 years worked and get my pension.

I was simply pointing out your error in case others were misinformed by it. I've known some great teachers who had to retire at 65 who loved what they did and would have liked to have stayed on teaching but got a letter to state that they had to retire. Each to their own. Perhaps some people like what they do in their job, good luck to them. What is a privilege to you might not be so for someone else who is forced to retire early, surely the choice is important?

rainbowtrout

planetorez wrote: »

I was simply pointing out your error in case others were misinformed by it. I've known some great teachers who had to retire at 65 who loved what they did and would have liked to have stayed on teaching but got a letter to state that they had to retire. Each to their own. Perhaps some people like what they do in their job, good luck to them. What is a privilege to you might not be so for someone else who is forced to retire early, surely the choice is important?

True, but the number of teachers who would willingly stay on at 65 are vanishingly few. The vast majority of pre 2004 teachers I know that have retired went before 65 and plenty of them didn’t have the full 40 years and had enough. I don’t know any of them that miss it.

wolfyboy555

So does someone who started post 2004 and pre 2013 have to work till 65 to recieve tge state pension regardless if you have done 40+ years? i.e start at 22 yrs old and go till 65? Is there an option to go at 62?

TheDriver

Not that I'm aware of. supplementary pension gets paid from 35/55 rule which only applies to pre 2004

themusicman

TheDriver wrote: »

Not that I'm aware of. supplementary pension gets paid from 35/55 rule which only applies to pre 2004

And the supplementary pension will only apply to post 1995 as pre 95 were class D prsi. If they have other A class stamps that may however be different again

rainbowtrout

wolfyboy555 wrote: »

So does someone who started post 2004 and pre 2013 have to work till 65 to recieve tge state pension regardless if you have done 40+ years? i.e start at 22 yrs old and go till 65? Is there an option to go at 62?

No option to go at 62 even if you have your 40 years served. No pension payout until 65 for post 2004.

Millem

wolfyboy555 wrote: »

So does someone who started post 2004 and pre 2013 have to work till 65 to recieve tge state pension regardless if you have done 40+ years? i.e start at 22 yrs old and go till 65? Is there an option to go at 62?

I am in the same situation as you.
I found this pdf from Cornmarket.

dory

I had a meeting with one of them years ago and they were awful. Lots of misinformation. I can't fathom how they're still allowed do that. They never mention the state pension we'll also get. I'm post 2012 so they tried to sell me an expensive Zurich investment. I'm well informed enough to be able to invest myself without paying their commission, but I've heard of people getting badly burned with them.

As part of the 1 on 1 they casually asked what month my car insurance renews. I now get hounded with emails, calls, texts every December.

Yer one in the 1 on 1 swore blind they're not on commission. She was trying to get me to hand over €300 fee to set up my Zurich life yoke. Anyone know if this is true? I can't imagine theyre not on commission the way they go on.

Shane119

Just wondering, do you consider income protection worthwhile?

Millem

Shane119 wrote: »

Just wondering, do you consider income protection worthwhile?

Yes absolutely it is well worth it.
I have had it since September 2014.

dingding

Shane119 wrote: »

Just wondering, do you consider income protection worthwhile?

WIth the changes in sick pay, it does not take much to go on half or indeed no pay. If you had a sudden illness or accident you could end up in a few months with no income. Worth it for the peace of mind. In a previous job, private sectorI had an illness and I was sick for almost a year. Actually I felt perfectly well, was diagnosed with cancer and it took me a year to recover from the chemo and a couple of operations.

Also as it is part of a group scheme you can generally get it without a loading if you have a previous medical history.

Shane119

I’ve had income protection for a couple of years with Cornmarket. It’s fairly pricey but I suppose it does give peace of mind. Was just wondering whether it was really necessary.

dory

Shane119 wrote: »

I’ve had income protection for a couple of years with Cornmarket. It’s fairly pricey but I suppose it does give peace of mind. Was just wondering whether it was really necessary.

Can I ask roughly how much it is? I don't have it but should maybe think about it.

Millem

It is a percentage of your salary.
Something like 1.7% of your gross if you are with TuI.

Treppen

dory wrote: »

Can I ask roughly how much it is? I don't have it but should maybe think about it.

You can claim tax relief on it.
Shop around and read the T's& C's carefully.
Happened a teacher I know who got cancer but luckily taken out a policy just a few days be fore the restriction period.

I pay nearly 50 before tax relief through cornmarket. It's the equivalent of 8 pints a month and our family wouldn't be in such a good position if I had a long term illness. If yer 25 with no kids and living at home with the folks or have your own gaffe with no mortgage then illness mightn't be as injurious (relatively speaking).

killbillvol2

dory wrote: »

Can I ask roughly how much it is? I don't have it but should maybe think about it.

As stated above it's a percentage of your salary.

I got some independent financial advice a couple of years ago and while they could pick holes in various other Cornmarket products they reckoned there's no comparable protection available at anywhere near the price of this one.

the14thwarrior

income protection is a gamble, like everything else.
i know a nurse recently who calculated everything she had spent on her income protection, with the realisation that it was an awful lot of money for nothing.
which she could only take till she was 60, and she's never needed to use it. She's sick now but her mortgage is paid off. Was paid off a few years ago but she continued with the income protection.

might consider it if you are young etc. but i just thought i'd rather take my chances and not save money in case i get so incapcitated i can't work.

i was cornered by cornmarket, so to speak, and while i signed up for an AVC, the subsequent cuts in wages, increase in taxes, other charges i eventually had to reduce my AVC to the minimum. Can't afford to put away loads of money away a month and wait years before I could spend it?

i pay into a pension so I'll have that.

wait 25+ years for a pension etc. and what i see now, is sadly, the more money you have when you retire, the less benefits you get. In theory it sounds great, but whats the point of putting away money hoping you live long enough to spend it? too old to do much with it!!! lol

r93kaey5p2izun

I had several colleagues refused income protection because of having an underactive thyroid gland, and a couple because of PCOS! These are very common illnesses, generally dismissed by doctors as trivial - so if this is the case huge numbers wouldn't be able to get income protection at all.

Millem

I joined it when they had a promo period of “no questions asked if you are under 40”.

the14thwarrior

I went as far as signing up for it, and i had to fill in a medical form / get my GP.
they refused me because of low back pain episode some 6 years previous, and i was on anti-smoking drug which threw me into depression and i was on tablets for under a year. All of this was when I lived in a country far away and before i even came home! When I questioned it, they said they were willing to have a pre-exisiting back condition sickness for a number of years before i could claim, but no to the depression, as it was a mental health issue; despite my doctor detailing out why I was on depression tablets.

So i said forget it. Despite having an excellent sick leave record for the previous three years.

After ongoing emails and phone calls for years after, I said it on the phone once to a rep, and he contacted me back within a week and said they were happy to sign me up. I said forget it. Five years has taught me to take my chances.......

So yeah, i was pi** off with them.