Compulsory retirement and the rise in the State pension age.

Phoebas

Touchee wrote: »

A strike would definitely draw attention to the issue and get more people involved.

Involved in what?

Airyfairy12

Edison Lazy Pavilion wrote: »

They go straight to pension, as it's not the State Old Age Pension.

They cant, i know sna's that have had to sign on the dole, theyre paid by the department of education, same as teachers.

Touchee

Phoebas wrote: »

Involved in what?

Involved in discussions about pension funding and retirement age. A lot of people simply ignore this issue as it too far in the future for them to envision what their retirement is likely to look like. By the time people become aware of it, it’s too late.

Once the retirement age becomes law, it is very difficult to reverse the damage. We should all be worrying about it, talking about it, shouting about it now, not in 20 years time.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

They cant, i know sna's that have had to sign on the dole, theyre paid by the department of education, same as teachers.

They are on different pension arrangements to teachers. Many teachers go on full pension at 60.

elperello

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

My mother will have to retire at 65, my dad has no pension, he's a bit of a waster, lived his life drinking and gambling and my mothers always been the bread winner although not that she earned much. She is terrified about whats going to happen, she has a mortgage, copd, a bone disease and medication already costs hundreds every month. We're all terrified. I feel like the government stole my twenties, im in my thirties and only now achieving the things I should have achieved 10 years ago, like learning how to drive, working full time, being able to save money. Now all that will have to go out the window as I will be supporting my parents financially form when my mother is forced to finished work.
This government is so completely out of touch with normal society, they really seem to live in a privileged little bubble unaware of the suffering theyre putting onto other people.
How are we allowing this to happen?

Sorry to hear about your problems.

Your mother should avail of the Drugs Payment Scheme.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/drugs_and_medicines/drugs_payment_scheme.html

She also is allowed to claim a tax refund for medical expenses. They go back 4 years so if she has receipts there may be some money owed to her. The pharmacist may be able to issue copies of receipts.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/personal-tax-credits-reliefs-and-exemptions/health-and-age/health-expenses/how-do-you-claim-health-expenses.aspx

It's probably worth her while making an appointment with the local Citizens Information Office. They will help her to make sure that she is getting all her entitlements.
You or other members of your family may be able to claim tax relief on payments made for your mothers health needs. Again check the Revenue site for details.

Topgear on Dave

The ****e is only just *beginning* to hit the fan with this stuff I reckon.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ronanlyons/status/1200425453586124802

My late granny had seven! kids all working and paying tax for the 24 years of her retirement.

My mother has 3 kids working paying for her retirement, (long may it last).

Those 3 kids, currently only have 3 kids to pay for their retirement, whenever it comes, if it comes.....

AndrewJRenko

fundi wrote: »

No, it is not right. But what can we do? Strike?

Protest like this?

https://twitter.com/Gerrrty/status/1216732888961601537

ANXIOUS

thesimpsons wrote: »

I'm not SIPTU either & never even saw it was a SIPTU backed thing, someone shared it to me so I'm trying to share it out as much as I can.

I've worked and paid every tax going since age of 16 and will get screwed over by this gap but I have numerous family members and acquaintances who have never contributed to taxes or worked and they will continue to see no real difference in their income. many tax injustices over the years have annoyed me but this one is really getting on my goat.

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

My mother will have to retire at 65, my dad has no pension, he's a bit of a waster, lived his life drinking and gambling and my mothers always been the bread winner although not that she earned much. She is terrified about whats going to happen, she has a mortgage, copd, a bone disease and medication already costs hundreds every month. We're all terrified. I feel like the government stole my twenties, im in my thirties and only now achieving the things I should have achieved 10 years ago, like learning how to drive, working full time, being able to save money. Now all that will have to go out the window as I will be supporting my parents financially form when my mother is forced to finished work.
This government is so completely out of touch with normal society, they really seem to live in a privileged little bubble unaware of the suffering theyre putting onto other people.
How are we allowing this to happen?

I am always interested in people's anger towards the government for failing to provide for them and their family. I would directing any and all anger at your father, he has a responsibility to your family.

fundi

Edison Lazy Pavilion wrote: »

They are on different pension arrangements to teachers. Many teachers go on full pension at 60.

It's a two tier society all right.

elperello

fundi wrote: »

It's a two tier society all right.

Just on that, teachers need 40 years service to retire on a full pension.

Public service pensions are part of the terms and conditions of the employment.

Airyfairy12

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I am always interested in people's anger towards the government for failing to provide for them and their family. I would directing any and all anger at your father, he has a responsibility to your family.

Im not expecting the government to 'provide for my family' My mother worked all her life since she was 16, she deserves to retire and not have to worry about ending up in poverty, like we all do after paying taxes our whole working lives. She wont even be entitled to her own pension when she needs it, a pension she's been paying into for 45 years, and even at that it's a ****ty pension she'll receive. Cant see your logic, how is her own pension somehow now the government providing for her?
It's absolutely terrifying to think that the government can turn around and leave you up **** creek when youre too old and no longer able to work.


Your attitude is disgusting tbh and id imagine it's how the current government think. No wonder this country is in the state it's in.

iamwhoiam

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I am always interested in people's anger towards the government for failing to provide for them and their family. I would directing any and all anger at your father, he has a responsibility to your family.

When you pay tax and PRSI contributions for 50 years you would think you could have a decent pension to retire on and keep a roof over your head

The Rape of Lucretia

iamwhoiam wrote: »

When you pay tax and PRSI contributions for 50 years you would think you could have a decent pension to retire on and keep a roof over your head

You would be wrong to think that though.

Tax is payed for current expenditure to run state services for you on a day to day basis. It is not going to fund your pension (unless you are in favour of raising income tax dramatically).
PRSI is effectively your contribution towards social insurance and your future pension. Without knowing the % the contribution going towards social insurance, but even if all 4% of your PRSI went towards your pension, then for an average salary of €40k, you are really only paying in enough to have an income of about €4000/an. So the govt giving you €12k/an is a very good deal indeed - too good in fact, and so why it is unsustainable. To genuinely be able to pay the 40k earner a pension of 12k as it does, they would need you to pay about 12% PRSI instead of 4%. And that assuming that you did indeed contribute for all of 50 years.

Smithwicks Man

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You would be wrong to think that though.

Tax is payed for current expenditure to run state services for you on a day to day basis. It is not going to fund your pension (unless you are in favour of raising income tax dramatically).
PRSI is effectively your contribution towards social insurance and your future pension. Without knowing the % the contribution going towards social insurance, but even if all 4% of your PRSI went towards your pension, then for an average salary of €40k, you are really only paying in enough to have an income of about €4000/an. So the govt giving you €12k/an is a very good deal indeed - too good in fact, and so why it is unsustainable. To genuinely be able to pay the 40k earner a pension of 12k as it does, they would need you to pay about 12% PRSI instead of 4%. And that assuming that you did indeed contribute for all of 50 years.

This post shows a clear lack of understanding of how pensions work and how the value of money evolves. If you paid 4% of your salary in 2020 when on €50k per year, the €2k you paid would be worth exponentially more when you went to receive your pension 40 years down the line.

You can't just say "if you paid x in now, you'd only be entitled to receive x back" almost half a century later. That's not how money works.

The Rape of Lucretia

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This post shows a clear lack of understanding of how pensions work and how the value of money evolves. If you paid 4% of your salary in 2020 when on €50k per year, the €2k you paid would be worth exponentially more when you went to receive your pension 40 years down the line.

You can't just say "if you paid x in now, you'd only be entitled to receive x back" almost half a century later. That's not how money works.

Why do you assume I didnt know that ?

No one can predict 50 years into the future, so we can only make best predictions. And money evolves in the same way whether its the govts or yours.
Contributions of 1600/an for 50 years, compounded on current pension estimates, will accumulate to about 130k. That will most likely pay a pension that can best be predicted to be in the region of less than €4k/an.

How does compounding annual returns work with your money ?

The Rape of Lucretia

Interesting to see this topic coming to early prominence in the election. Probably the first time pensions would have made any impact in the top 10 items of interest to the voter. And looks like a bidding war is underway.
Which, while typical of Irish politics, politicians, and the pressure exerted by the electorate, is disappointing. If this current plan is derailed now that it is facing significant numbers of people imminently, it bodes ill for the financial security of the country.
Would legislation to extend the validity of employment contracts to all those with a 65 age in them (only a tradition anyway taking its line from the state pension being available from 65) to whatever revised age applied to the individual (66, 67, 68) not have been a better way for the govt to pass the cost buck ?


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-promises-early-retirement-pension-amid-backlash-over-gap-1.4144494

Touchee

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Interesting to see this topic coming to early prominence in the election. Probably the first time pensions would have made any impact in the top 10 items of interest to the voter. And looks like a bidding war is underway.
Which, while typical of Irish politics, politicians, and the pressure exerted by the electorate, is disappointing. If this current plan is derailed now that it is facing significant numbers of people imminently, it bodes ill for the financial security of the country.
Would legislation to extend the validity of employment contracts to all those with a 65 age in them (only a tradition anyway taking its line from the state pension being available from 65) to whatever revised age applied to the individual (66, 67, 68) not have been a better way for the govt to pass the cost buck ?


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-promises-early-retirement-pension-amid-backlash-over-gap-1.4144494

Most people want the retirement age reversed to 65, not their employment contracts extended till 67. For me personally, working until 67 is not feasible. As people age, they get tired quicker, they start having health issues, reduced mobility.

astrofool

We are living longer and healthier, retirement age has to keep on rising as we extend our lifespan and are able to work longer, all the politicking going on right now is creating an even more insurmountable problem for future generations.

People need to start saving their own pension.

The date for the public pension to start needs to keep on going up, OR the amount it pays has to go down.

If a political party is giving any solution without the consequence, than they are robbing future generations, all the children/grandchildren/yet to be born of those alive today, any party preying on that should be admonished and shunned.

Anyone stupid enough to believe otherwise should be lampooned.

astrofool

Touchee wrote: »

Most people want the retirement age reversed to 65, not their employment contracts extended till 67. For me personally, working until 67 is not feasible. As people age, they get tired quicker, they start having health issues, reduced mobility.

So you want us to reduce the average lifespan, so we are more unhealthy at 65 than we are today?

Touchee

astrofool wrote: »

So you want us to reduce the average lifespan, so we are more unhealthy at 65 than we are today?

I haven’t mentioned anything about lifespan. I just don’t fancy working until I die. I would like a few years to enjoy spending time with my grandchildren (if any), to travel some more, to wake up when I want, to leave the house when I want.

Why are you so keen about working until you pass away?

If the PRSI contributions have to be increased, the government should have considered that, rather than being so sneaky and increasing the retirement age and being so quiet about it. I personally save into a private pension, but not everyone can afford to.

I work with someone who is 65, who commutes for 1.5 hours each way, who is sick at least 1 month per year (since she turned 63). You can actually see her wasting away every day.

astrofool

Touchee wrote: »

I haven’t mentioned anything about lifespan. I just don’t fancy working until I die. I would like a few years to enjoy spending time with my grandchildren (if any), to travel some more, to wake up when I want, to leave the house when I want.

Why are you so keen about working until you pass away?

If the PRSI contributions have to be increased, the government should have considered that, rather than being so sneaky and increasing the retirement age and being so quiet about it. I personally save into a private pension, but not everyone can afford to.

I work with someone who is 65, who commutes for 1.5 hours each way, who is sick at least 1 month per year (since she turned 63). You can actually see her wasting away every day.

There are disability payments for those too sick for work.

Fact is, the currently working have to pay the pension for those that are retired, the problem will get worse as our health gets even better (and it has already increased hugely in the past 2 decades), so this means either retiring with a lower pension or working longer. As the numbers of retired increase, those working will not be able to sustain them, we're getting to the point where getting to 100 years old will become commonplace, which means not working almost as long as working (assuming a starting age of 18), that is impossible to fund, believing otherwise is stupid.

edit: what I would like is irrelevant, I would retire today if I could, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that is a policy that anyone with a basic understanding of maths would believe is possible, the parties implying otherwise should be called up on it.

The Rape of Lucretia

Touchee wrote: »

Most people want the retirement age reversed to 65, not their employment contracts extended till 67.

And do they want a lowering pension value or to pay higher tax in order to reverse it ?

AulWan

astrofool wrote: »

There are disability payments for those too sick for work.

Not everyone qualifies for them.

astrofool

AulWan wrote: »

Not everyone qualifies for them.

So your argument is that the bar for disability payment is too high...

AulWan

astrofool wrote: »

So your argument is that the bar for disability payment is too high...

No, my argument is that a lot of workers would not qualify for illness or disability benefits if they got sick.

Not to mention, disability itself is notoriously difficult to claim, and illness benefit (is subject to contributions paid) and is time limited.

astrofool

AulWan wrote: »

No, my argument is that a lot of workers would not qualify for illness or disability benefits if they got sick.

Not to mention, disability itself is notoriously difficult to claim, and illness benefit (is subject to contributions paid) and is time limited.

Sure, but that's a completely different problem to the retirement age, in a society which is living longer and healthier.

Airyfairy12

astrofool wrote: »

Sure, but that's a completely different problem to the retirement age, in a society which is living longer and healthier.

Just because people are living longer doesnt mean theyre living healthier or are more abled at an older age. A 68 year old still has the body of a 68 year old. They may have better chances surviving a heart attack or stroke compared to 50 years ago but thats not because their bodies are any younger or healthier.

The Rape of Lucretia

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Just because people are living longer doesnt mean theyre living healthier or are more abled at an older age. A 68 year old still has the body of a 68 year old. They may have better chances surviving a heart attack or stroke compared to 50 years ago but thats not because their bodies are any younger or healthier.

But it does mean they have to either work longer or save/paytax more while they are working. It is simply one or the other.

Working for 45 years and living an average of 10-15 after that gave us the system we have. But today working for 45 years is not a reason to say now I deserve to retire and be paid 12k a year pension- because the people concerned by this change will live on average 20-25 years longer than 65. Nobody owes you to pay your retirement just because you are living longer - you have to pay for that somehow yourself.

Airyfairy12

Do you really think men who are hard manual laborers will still be able to lay bricks, build, tile, roof buildings, clean chimneys, heavy lift, continue working in carpentry or metalwork with dangerous machines when theyre old men at 68.

Typical privileged attitude, the middle class genuinely think that everyone has a nice well payed job, sitting in an office, only thinking of themselves and how these things effect them.
You forget who does all the road works, builds your homes, fits your house with electricity and plumbing and who comes to cleans your chimneys and unblock your pipes.
Or the nurses that will have to work till their 68, already under paid and over worked in a job were even young nurses make mistakes due to lack of sleep and stress.
I could on all day listing jobs that arent suitable for old people. Thats why we have retirement, to protect people, including ourselves when we get old.
I cant believe anyone would contest that and be in the mindset that retiring at 68 is good enough for them. How selfish, shallow and out of touch do you have to be?

The Rape of Lucretia

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Do you really think men who are hard manual laborers will still be able to lay bricks, build, tile, roof buildings, clean chimneys, heavy lift, continue working in carpentry or metalwork with dangerous machines when theyre old men at 68.

Typical privileged attitude, the middle class genuinely think that everyone has a nice well payed job, sitting in an office, only thinking of themselves and how these things effect them.
You forget who does all the road works, builds your homes, fits your house with electricity and plumbing and who comes to cleans your chimneys and unblock your pipes.
Or the nurses that will have to work till their 68, already under paid and over worked in a job were even young nurses make mistakes due to lack of sleep and stress.
I could on all day listing jobs that arent suitable for old people. Thats why we have retirement, to protect people, including ourselves when we get old.
I cant believe anyone would contest that and be in the mindset that retiring at 68 is good enough for them. How selfish, shallow and out of touch do you have to be?

Are you trying to make a case for builders and nurses paying higher PRSI rate than office workers ? You have a good point.